Cold Hearted or a Life with Morals

Scenario:
Many individuals find work and put their effort into being good at their job so that they can maintain a satisfying life. The company goes under and the workers are now out of work. Is this now my duty to give money to support them? If so, what incentives are we giving here; to not work hard let the company fail because in the end you are still supported? Is there something I am missing? Am I just cold-hearted or am I just being moralistic.

Sorry the company failed. I know if I were out of a job I'd want help too, but lets not reward bad behavior otherwise we should not punish the disobedient child.

Rewards and prizes go to those who deserve it, not to he who cries loudest. Society as a whole frowns upon the parent who give in to the bratty kid, why should we give in to the grown ups who cry loudest?

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.

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?

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!

Individual rights sold by a Vote

The nation appears to be fascinated with politics for the past month since it is the primaries...
It is almost like watching a sports game as the country splits itself to cheer for their favorite politician. They chant, they boo, and they donate money. I thought this was interesting, but then I thought of why we vote for someone.

We vote for someone to go to Washington D.C. and vote for us. Well then am I not handing my rights off to that person to vote for how they see fit? Would I lend my house or car to someone and get it returned to me in four years after they had used it as they saw fit? Of course, if they total my car I may never give it back to them, but who lends their car or house to someone they hardly know? It would be called irrational.

Well, I am thinking that it would be irrational to lend my rights out to someone else who does not share the same beliefs as me. Therefore, politician, you must be a practicing Catholic with free market ideals. You must have a passion for liberty and a hatred towards policies that do anything besides allow free movement of goods. Yes, this includes immigrants (they are a good; its called labor). You must wish to decrease the power of government, privatize roads & schools, and demolish welfare. You must love watching Rambo & Rocky movies and can discuss the economic brilliance of the two.

Is there no candidate that fits my criteria?
For Shame And They(the candidates) Expect Me To Pass Them My Rights

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.

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.

Smoking

I do not point fingers or say any politician is at fault, but what is it with government wishing to impose upon more on our lives. To ban smoking from restaurants as if they owned the restaurants. Next they will ban smoking in our own homes. What is the use of owning a property if you do not get to do what you wish with it? Is the government not to protect our property? If its duty is to protect our property, why does it seem they continuously invade our homes with all their organizations? (FDA, FCC, etc)

This is short because there is not much to say on it only the few questions asked. Why shouldn't the restaurants decide on their own what their customers value more smoking or non. If the customers would rather have nonsmoking wouldn't we expect the greedy restaurants to cut away with their smoking section in order to increase their profits? Just a thought... or an outburst.

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.

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...

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.

Immigrants and the Economy

The Washington Post displays that the farming industry is the first to feel the impact the immigration debate has upon the the American economy. For those who enjoy fruits expect to pay a higher price. I won't spend your time by reinstating what the Washington Post had said, but I will use it to extend my arguement.

The arguement is simple. As the border tightens, the illegal immigrants look towards a job that enables them to gain year round rather than work on the fields which workers are needed only during certain times throughout the year. The decrease in workers in agriculture will decrease the amount of produce produced throughout the year which causes the price to increase.

Let us keep it simple. Assuming demand for produce stays the same, the supply will shift to the left as quantity has decreased. Remember where supply and demand intersect is the market price therefore the price has now increased. Are we to go back in time where only the rich could afford to receive the benefit of eating grapes?

Well, if we wish to have a tighter border we must have expected to pay higher taxes as to pay the wages for the border patrol, workers who build the wall across the Mexico border, and for an increase in prices upon products we buy. I am sure if we add all the costs that we must pay and compare them to the costs claimed caused by illegal immigrants we shall find that the cost of increased border tightening is higher than having illegal immigrants. For this we can put the stamp of INEFFICIENT to the policy of tightening the border.

The Devil in the flesh?

Throughout the media, we are repeatedly hearing the term "the Devil" today, as President Hugo Chavez speaks about President Bush. It is not like the comment was unexpected to come out at one point in time especially from the President of Columbia who has already proclaimed his dislike for President Bush, but what is interesting is the rise of supporters of both sides.
President Bush had almost conceived his own policy years ago, "You are either with us or against us." I have spent over an hour reading blogs that were either in full support of President Bush attacking President Chavez with out reading what he claims. In the other side, there are the blogs who cheer on the term Devil applied to President Bush. Certainly I can say harsh things between both sides, but show me someone who you can't chastise?
I don't support President Chavez' claim that President Bush is "the Devil", but I do not view President as any type of saviour; he is human after all.

The point I want to come across is that we are all stubborn in a form or another, but we have to open ourselves at some point, unless we have the proof as to oppose it. i.e. socialism, interventionalist economic policies(including a foreign government intervening with another's policies) On a good note, FED leaves the interest rate alone, oh, and the rise of U.S. and China 'economic dialogue'.

Abuse of Power

I was reading this months Rolling Stone when I fell across an interesting article about the Governor race in Ohio. Yes, this is going to reiterate the already highly spoke of accusations that the Ohio polls were fixed in the 2004 Presidential Election. I was hesitant to write anything about it from this article so I began to look for more proof throughout the internet. It was not difficult to find that the circumstances are true. The Secretary of State Blackwell of Ohio had made laws causing it harder for certain individuals to vote. Namely the lower classes who do not have id cards or the time to have id cards with updated information as in place of residence. I am not going to begin to explain what was done. Only that Blackwell is now running for Governor of Ohio while still holding the Secretary of State of Ohio position. He could use his power in office to cause the outcome of the election in his favor. Not saying that he would, but he has been accussed of fixing the election in 2004. It would only be a smart move as to not run for Governor while still holding such a powerful position as he could be viewed as abusing his power.

Politicians are not the only ones who abuse the power entrusted unto them. The military gives their recruiters complete control in acquiring new recruits. The problem that has arised is the recruiters violating the rights of new recruits sexually. Young adults want to enter the service to support their country; others have no other options but feel that the military will give them a chance, yet the recruiters can offer the best MOSes (jobs) to those who they like rather than to those who earn the spot. As most of those who enlist do not know everything about the military, the positions or how to enter them, the recruiters have the opportunity to ask for something more, or even grant them a lesser position. Most recruiters are men so we can assume that it is mainly young women who are being sexually assaulted verbally and physically, but the young men may be abused as well even if they do not view it as an assault. We have not even begun upon the bonuses that the recruiters can offer. Would they not offer the bonuses to those who give them favors or to those who they are more friends with? Must new recruits become friends with their recruiters or should they trust that the recruiter is trying to do the right thing for his service, for his Corp.

God's Government

On August 4, the Ditzy Democrats had an interview with Shayna Englin as the Ditzy Democrats call the "first lady of Virginia's 45th District." Within the interview Mrs. Englin had said

I defy anyone to quote me the passage in the bible that calls for capital gains tax cuts and cutting welfare benefits to mothers. If God chose a political party, God would most certainly be a Democrat. God may be angry, but I’m comfortable that it’s not with me…

In the comments section I had replied with a short answer with a note that I may post upon the issue, and so here it is.

I had been pondering this issue for a while. What initially began me with my search for what government God may have or on what political side God may reside upon came when I had read a Catholic book claiming that the best of the Jewish Kings was David. From this I had to ask myself, why God would create a monarchy, only to find that today monarchies are frowned upon. Reasons why monarchies are terrible are easily stated. For one, man is not perfect; he would side with one side over another upon situations. To quote James Madison:

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

Yet kings are not angels, therefore are not fit to lead us without any restraints. But why did God create the monarchy and have Saul, David, and Solomon lead his people?

Kristin from Ditzy Democrats answered me in the comments with the answer. That we, the people had created governments and political parties. God had never instituted taxes, never took away any freedom of choices, or created a welfare state. Is our valued republic the government of God? Of course not, if it was God would have created the government a long time before for us to follow through as the Catholic's believe 'apostolic tradition'. The people of Israel had cried out for a King so that they may be like other nations. God had instructed them that although he did not want to give them a king, he would since his people wanted it, but he gave them a warning that they would not like it.

Perhaps the libertarians have it right, perhaps we can have a civil society that works together through the market in order to create a nation that needs no government. I can't say that I agree with this, but God never did give us a form of government to follow, only the way to our salvation. Makes you think that salvation is not through government....

But make no mistake that God does allow freedom of choice, therefore any government that restricts that freedom we can claim is unGodly.