You can spend a lifetime discovering things on the internet. Luckily for me, it took me a short time while browsing through videos for good laughs on YouTube.
As always, life finds a way. Amazing what an incentive will cause someone or thing to do.
The birds wanting to crack nuts with ease and safety had devised an interesting system by using their surroundings
Yet we find other birds who find a better way to adapt with no need to inconvenience themselves with a high cost upon their lives. Everywhere and in everything we find incentives. The bird steals but does not think of it as stealing only for the fact that it has received food. For the birds there is only one incentive, to eat.
We are faced everyday with our own decisions to make facing incentives and it is our job to find the easiest way of obtaining what it is we want. Anything can be done... you just need the right incentives to do it.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sunday Mass is for self prayer?
So perhaps I am misunderstanding the Catholic Church; I must be since all those who are not Catholic usually tell me that they do not have to be at Church to pray to God that they can pray wherever they like. As I understand it, that is the point. We should pray everywhere and anywhere not just behind the closed doors of the church. That is the point of being a Christian by loving God and living by his Word.
The next question I encounter is why then must we attend Sunday Mass?
We attend to receive Holy Communion, to listen to the scripture, to pray in unity as the children of God. Mass, from my perception, appears to be less of an individual prayer than a group prayer. We adore, love, and ask for forgiveness from the Lord before we receive him together as a group as the whole Church.
Immediately after receiving communion, many individuals enjoy being in the presence of the Lord. They kneel in silent reflection. I am beginning to believe when kneeling following the communion we should join the choir in song to help all celebrate in their communion. In this moment we are as a whole filled with the Lord and able to pray and glorify him more fully. This leaves for that moment of reflection to be a short enjoyment from when the Priest is purifying the vessels and sits down in his own reflection to when he stands for ending prayer. In fact, at the end of Mass is when the individual prayers should begin. I like to end it with a Prayer to St. Michael to combat the devil, but that is for the individual to decide....
The next question I encounter is why then must we attend Sunday Mass?
We attend to receive Holy Communion, to listen to the scripture, to pray in unity as the children of God. Mass, from my perception, appears to be less of an individual prayer than a group prayer. We adore, love, and ask for forgiveness from the Lord before we receive him together as a group as the whole Church.
Immediately after receiving communion, many individuals enjoy being in the presence of the Lord. They kneel in silent reflection. I am beginning to believe when kneeling following the communion we should join the choir in song to help all celebrate in their communion. In this moment we are as a whole filled with the Lord and able to pray and glorify him more fully. This leaves for that moment of reflection to be a short enjoyment from when the Priest is purifying the vessels and sits down in his own reflection to when he stands for ending prayer. In fact, at the end of Mass is when the individual prayers should begin. I like to end it with a Prayer to St. Michael to combat the devil, but that is for the individual to decide....
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
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...
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...
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Why Transformers was better than 300
Yes, I said it. Transformers was better than 300. A little late to write this but lets have it, I am never on time as it is.
300, the movie about Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans. Disappointing as it lacked storyline as it was extremely predictable filled with sex scenes that were pointless. I'll give it to them for the scene at the Oracle, that is how the Oracle originally worked, but the marital sex was pointless as he was not turned on by her but to the mere fact he was a "free man". A "free man" who did not choose to be a fighter nor a Spartan. A "free man" who only had one choice throughout the movie, bow down to Xerxes or have to fight for his kingdom. Hey have to call it. When you have no choice towards your profession or lifestyle, it is not freedom. A shame for everyone to believe that only through the State can you achieve Freedom.
Transformers, corny throughout the movie, but more depth in the storyline than 300. Why did the car choose Sam should have been the question in the beginning? What is it the Decepticons are after should have been the next question. Of course, we should have been able to foretell what they were since the displayed it in the beginning of the movie with Sam. Yet the plot of Transformers had something that 300 lacked. Cooperation, innovation, and a better message.
Let us define the different versions of Freedom
In 300, Freedom is to live under the state you are used to.
In Transformers, Freedom is the ability to choose b/w life and death; between good or evil and not allowing others to make that decision for you.
How about Innovation?
300, Innovation was to fight at Thermopylae as to create a small pass where the 300 could hold off the entire Persian Army.
Transformers, the military overcame and adapted to the situation learning from each battle with the Decepticons of what they could do to cause harm to the giant robots; changing the battle area from one place to another to allow themselves a strategic advantage. Heck even the Decepticons overcame their disadvantages by shutting down the communications link throughout the world. This isn't to say that Xerxes never overcame anything, but according to the movie he had to wait until a crippled Spartan had leaked information about a pass so that he could attack the Spartans in a new fashion.
As for the message,
300 claimed that men died for a reason which would be Freedom thus encouraging all of Greece to unite to fight against the Persian Army.
Transformers completely took all the work 300 and worked it into 300's ending. Instead of their being death to cause people to unite, they found their was one cause that those with differences can unite for; Freedom.
Truth is the actual history of Thermopylae is a time when Greece unified itself to overcome the Persians. The true story was that like the movie Transformers. The most disciplined force of ancient times, the Spartans, with only a handful of themselves assembled with other Greeks and held the land battle. The Athenians, greatly outnumbered in the sea, led a sea attack against Persian ships to curtail them from sending reinforcements behind the land units on the pass.
Face it, 300 was disapointing, so they gave us Transformers.
300, the movie about Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans. Disappointing as it lacked storyline as it was extremely predictable filled with sex scenes that were pointless. I'll give it to them for the scene at the Oracle, that is how the Oracle originally worked, but the marital sex was pointless as he was not turned on by her but to the mere fact he was a "free man". A "free man" who did not choose to be a fighter nor a Spartan. A "free man" who only had one choice throughout the movie, bow down to Xerxes or have to fight for his kingdom. Hey have to call it. When you have no choice towards your profession or lifestyle, it is not freedom. A shame for everyone to believe that only through the State can you achieve Freedom.
Transformers, corny throughout the movie, but more depth in the storyline than 300. Why did the car choose Sam should have been the question in the beginning? What is it the Decepticons are after should have been the next question. Of course, we should have been able to foretell what they were since the displayed it in the beginning of the movie with Sam. Yet the plot of Transformers had something that 300 lacked. Cooperation, innovation, and a better message.
Let us define the different versions of Freedom
In 300, Freedom is to live under the state you are used to.
In Transformers, Freedom is the ability to choose b/w life and death; between good or evil and not allowing others to make that decision for you.
How about Innovation?
300, Innovation was to fight at Thermopylae as to create a small pass where the 300 could hold off the entire Persian Army.
Transformers, the military overcame and adapted to the situation learning from each battle with the Decepticons of what they could do to cause harm to the giant robots; changing the battle area from one place to another to allow themselves a strategic advantage. Heck even the Decepticons overcame their disadvantages by shutting down the communications link throughout the world. This isn't to say that Xerxes never overcame anything, but according to the movie he had to wait until a crippled Spartan had leaked information about a pass so that he could attack the Spartans in a new fashion.
As for the message,
300 claimed that men died for a reason which would be Freedom thus encouraging all of Greece to unite to fight against the Persian Army.
Transformers completely took all the work 300 and worked it into 300's ending. Instead of their being death to cause people to unite, they found their was one cause that those with differences can unite for; Freedom.
Truth is the actual history of Thermopylae is a time when Greece unified itself to overcome the Persians. The true story was that like the movie Transformers. The most disciplined force of ancient times, the Spartans, with only a handful of themselves assembled with other Greeks and held the land battle. The Athenians, greatly outnumbered in the sea, led a sea attack against Persian ships to curtail them from sending reinforcements behind the land units on the pass.
Face it, 300 was disapointing, so they gave us Transformers.
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.
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.
Monday, June 18, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
History of Economics Society
On Friday evening, the History of Economic Society's annual conference kicked off with a lecture from Professor and Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan. For the past two days, the Johnson Center 3rd floor has been filled with economists from around the world, to meet, greet, discuss, or to seek feedback on topics they are interested in. From 8:30 in the morning until early evening, the economists sit in rooms usually filled with student groups. Books are sold at a reduced price where you can purchase the complete collection of Ricardo for $76 or the complete set of Buchanan for less than a $100.
If you ever get a chance to attend a conference for any economic society, my advice is to take it, even if you must pay a price to attend. This conference was worth its price Friday evening when we received the blessing of listening to James Buchanan.
If you ever get a chance to attend a conference for any economic society, my advice is to take it, even if you must pay a price to attend. This conference was worth its price Friday evening when we received the blessing of listening to James Buchanan.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Easter Special: Religion and Economics
It is Good Friday. Easter is among us, and we continously face scarcity.
What am I implying? That the free market is God's gift. Many Christians believe that God would want us to live in socialism as we should share everything, but I ask you, IF this was the case, why would God have written the Ten Commandments to include property rights. Oh yes, property rights for how else can you covet your neighbor's property unless it is your neighbor's property and not your own. Private property is one of the foundations upon the free market.
Free market is not a thing that was created by man, but a gift that functions on its own. Man does not cooperate with one another and bring about a society when all is shared and given to one another, but this rather allows for free riders. A society that cooperates is one that trades for one action for another. Trades between their own private property.
Think of this, the Holy Trinity, is three entities in one God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We break them into three entitites in order to better comprehend God.
"Competing in cooperation and cooperating in competition all people are instrumental in bringing about the result, .... the determination of prices, the direction of productive efforts, and distribution.... These three events are not different matters. They are only different aspects of one indivisible phenomenon which our analytical scrutiny seperates into three parts."(Mises)
Similar by coincidence or is the free market a gift? Capitalism is the means. A peaceful society is the end to the means. Thank God for Capitalism
What am I implying? That the free market is God's gift. Many Christians believe that God would want us to live in socialism as we should share everything, but I ask you, IF this was the case, why would God have written the Ten Commandments to include property rights. Oh yes, property rights for how else can you covet your neighbor's property unless it is your neighbor's property and not your own. Private property is one of the foundations upon the free market.
Free market is not a thing that was created by man, but a gift that functions on its own. Man does not cooperate with one another and bring about a society when all is shared and given to one another, but this rather allows for free riders. A society that cooperates is one that trades for one action for another. Trades between their own private property.
Think of this, the Holy Trinity, is three entities in one God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We break them into three entitites in order to better comprehend God.
"Competing in cooperation and cooperating in competition all people are instrumental in bringing about the result, .... the determination of prices, the direction of productive efforts, and distribution.... These three events are not different matters. They are only different aspects of one indivisible phenomenon which our analytical scrutiny seperates into three parts."(Mises)
Similar by coincidence or is the free market a gift? Capitalism is the means. A peaceful society is the end to the means. Thank God for Capitalism
Sunday, April 01, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Government Rights on War
I have been quiet due to a crazy spring semester. Crazy on terms that there are plenty of things to accomplish, but I had been too quiet. Bout time for some expression.
I had been conflicted with myself for a while now. I have blogged on government intervention for a while now and had been bitten by the notion that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." If you recall that is an old quote from Thomas Jefferson. He saw the problem with governments and how they imposed upon the rights of the people. So I am just reiterating what it is we know. My conflict fell upon the military. Should or could the military be privatized. Many have said yes, but I could not understand it. If it was privatized then he who owned it could impose his rules on to us by force. Therefore it leaves that military must lie in the hands of the government, but if the government has a military it can then cry out for war sending our military to any corner of the world.
The answer to this was simple, and I owe a gratitude to Economics PHD student at GMU for the insight. I can also attribute it to a few books, but it is mainly due to the PHD student. So simple is the notion although he believes in privatizing the military. The government can simply never proclaim war upon any other nation. The military's use is only to protect the rights of the citizens from any foreign force trying to enforce themselves upon them. By taking away the governments power in declaring war, we take away the politicians use of the country's military for their own gain. By the loss of declaring war, we allow those in the military to live longer more productive lives. By the loss of declaring war, we earn an edge, for a military that fights for the protection of their own family fights best. Yes, the Constitution needs a new amendment. That the government can no longer declare war.
Now there will be cries for help from across the world. Could there not be a privatized team to assist them? Perhaps former military who are experts in their field will join together constructing a privatized military. With this, companies oversees can pay former Marines, soldiers, airmen, or sailors for protection. Foreign governments would pay these privatized military men for aide. They would receive the market wage they should be earning rather than the underpaid government wages. In other jobs, the riskier the job the higher the pay. Why is it the military is underpaid? Government control. An open market privatized military would be able to receive top dollar for their labor. Yes, let there be an end to government force. Let there be an end to government's abuse. Let there be an end to declaring War.
I had been conflicted with myself for a while now. I have blogged on government intervention for a while now and had been bitten by the notion that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." If you recall that is an old quote from Thomas Jefferson. He saw the problem with governments and how they imposed upon the rights of the people. So I am just reiterating what it is we know. My conflict fell upon the military. Should or could the military be privatized. Many have said yes, but I could not understand it. If it was privatized then he who owned it could impose his rules on to us by force. Therefore it leaves that military must lie in the hands of the government, but if the government has a military it can then cry out for war sending our military to any corner of the world.
The answer to this was simple, and I owe a gratitude to Economics PHD student at GMU for the insight. I can also attribute it to a few books, but it is mainly due to the PHD student. So simple is the notion although he believes in privatizing the military. The government can simply never proclaim war upon any other nation. The military's use is only to protect the rights of the citizens from any foreign force trying to enforce themselves upon them. By taking away the governments power in declaring war, we take away the politicians use of the country's military for their own gain. By the loss of declaring war, we allow those in the military to live longer more productive lives. By the loss of declaring war, we earn an edge, for a military that fights for the protection of their own family fights best. Yes, the Constitution needs a new amendment. That the government can no longer declare war.
Now there will be cries for help from across the world. Could there not be a privatized team to assist them? Perhaps former military who are experts in their field will join together constructing a privatized military. With this, companies oversees can pay former Marines, soldiers, airmen, or sailors for protection. Foreign governments would pay these privatized military men for aide. They would receive the market wage they should be earning rather than the underpaid government wages. In other jobs, the riskier the job the higher the pay. Why is it the military is underpaid? Government control. An open market privatized military would be able to receive top dollar for their labor. Yes, let there be an end to government force. Let there be an end to government's abuse. Let there be an end to declaring War.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Universal HealthCare
I had promised a post on this subject last week, unfortunately I am not able to post throughout the week. Therefore I apologize that I will only be able to post on Sundays.
Universal HealthCare is defined as every citizen to have healthcare. For a government to uphold this claim, they must supply healthcare to those who are unable to afford it. Sounds caring; health care for the poor. Who would not want to support those in need?
When said that the government shall provide health care for those without it, we enter a realm of assumptions. Most people assume that the government has infinite supply of money therefore has the ability to provide the healthcare to all in need. The amount of citizens without healthcare is also assumed since it is assumed that others would spend their money on their own healthcare. These two assumptions are completely false and have no data to support their claims. Governments do not have an infinite supply of money. In fact, if the government continues to print money they cause inflation with the large increase of money in circulation. This means the dollar loses its value. Therefore government, just as any entity, only has a limited amount of money to spend on anything. Will it have enough money to give healthcare to all in need? Seeing how our National Debt is continuously increasing I see no funds for a universal healthcare plan.
Now the governement is not outlawing private healthcare. Therefore those who wish to pay for their own healthcare are more than welcome. Problem does not lie with the private healthcare but with the government's policy itself. Most college students do not have healthcare since they cannot afford it or do not wish to borrow more money in order to have it. Students see themselves as young and able to take the risk. Therefore students who are not under their parents' health plans will now receive the universal healthcare. Those who do not receive a high wage as in employees of low paying employers, i.e. McDonalds, Wendy's, Walmart, Etc. will also wish to receive this universal healthcare. They will want to keep as much of their wage as possible therefore would love to receive the free government provided healthcare. Let us not forget that some companies who do not wish to pay for the employees to have healthcare will use the universal healthcare as well.
The amount of people who will want this government provided healthcare has drastically increased. The amount of money the government has continuously decreases. The government will need money. As the government only has a limited amount of ways to receive money, they will do the one that enables them to have the largest increase. Raise Taxes. Everyone has to pay for others to have healthcare. Those who wished to have the free government provided healthcare do not realize that they are paying for it through taxes. Furthermore, those who chose to have private healthcare which they pay for out of their pocket will have to pay a higher tax in order to provide others with healthcare.
Universal Healthcare is not free. The money has to come from somewhere. The amount of people who might be able to afford their own healthcare will choose to receive the universal healthcare since they are paying for it in taxes already. If private healthcare is worth a certain market price, paying the market price and higher taxes decreases your want of the private healthcare. Is universal healthcare the answer to this nations problem? No. The next question to be asked will be who will then provide cheap healthcare? If there is a profit, there will always be someone willing to provide such a service. If the government intervenes causing the cost for cheap healthcare to increase, there will be less of companies to provide such services.
Just to note, I did not include the lists of abuses people, doctors do since they are not paying for it. I.E. Doctors in Florida who paid taxi drivers to pick up retirees in retirement homes. The retirees only want their medication to be refilled. The doctors give them prescriptions for refills but also add tests they never performed to the bill, thus increasing the amount they are paid for services never provided.
Universal HealthCare is defined as every citizen to have healthcare. For a government to uphold this claim, they must supply healthcare to those who are unable to afford it. Sounds caring; health care for the poor. Who would not want to support those in need?
When said that the government shall provide health care for those without it, we enter a realm of assumptions. Most people assume that the government has infinite supply of money therefore has the ability to provide the healthcare to all in need. The amount of citizens without healthcare is also assumed since it is assumed that others would spend their money on their own healthcare. These two assumptions are completely false and have no data to support their claims. Governments do not have an infinite supply of money. In fact, if the government continues to print money they cause inflation with the large increase of money in circulation. This means the dollar loses its value. Therefore government, just as any entity, only has a limited amount of money to spend on anything. Will it have enough money to give healthcare to all in need? Seeing how our National Debt is continuously increasing I see no funds for a universal healthcare plan.
Now the governement is not outlawing private healthcare. Therefore those who wish to pay for their own healthcare are more than welcome. Problem does not lie with the private healthcare but with the government's policy itself. Most college students do not have healthcare since they cannot afford it or do not wish to borrow more money in order to have it. Students see themselves as young and able to take the risk. Therefore students who are not under their parents' health plans will now receive the universal healthcare. Those who do not receive a high wage as in employees of low paying employers, i.e. McDonalds, Wendy's, Walmart, Etc. will also wish to receive this universal healthcare. They will want to keep as much of their wage as possible therefore would love to receive the free government provided healthcare. Let us not forget that some companies who do not wish to pay for the employees to have healthcare will use the universal healthcare as well.
The amount of people who will want this government provided healthcare has drastically increased. The amount of money the government has continuously decreases. The government will need money. As the government only has a limited amount of ways to receive money, they will do the one that enables them to have the largest increase. Raise Taxes. Everyone has to pay for others to have healthcare. Those who wished to have the free government provided healthcare do not realize that they are paying for it through taxes. Furthermore, those who chose to have private healthcare which they pay for out of their pocket will have to pay a higher tax in order to provide others with healthcare.
Universal Healthcare is not free. The money has to come from somewhere. The amount of people who might be able to afford their own healthcare will choose to receive the universal healthcare since they are paying for it in taxes already. If private healthcare is worth a certain market price, paying the market price and higher taxes decreases your want of the private healthcare. Is universal healthcare the answer to this nations problem? No. The next question to be asked will be who will then provide cheap healthcare? If there is a profit, there will always be someone willing to provide such a service. If the government intervenes causing the cost for cheap healthcare to increase, there will be less of companies to provide such services.
Just to note, I did not include the lists of abuses people, doctors do since they are not paying for it. I.E. Doctors in Florida who paid taxi drivers to pick up retirees in retirement homes. The retirees only want their medication to be refilled. The doctors give them prescriptions for refills but also add tests they never performed to the bill, thus increasing the amount they are paid for services never provided.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Globalization and Religion
Immigration has been the hot topic as of late, not only on this blog but across the news. Lou Dobbs continuously attacking the illegal immigrants and the outsourcing of "American jobs". These negative viewpoints are an attack on the very reality which enables the United States to take claim as the most powerful country in the world, globalization. I have heard many arguments against globalization, but then I turned to a few essays written about September 11 which seemed to take the argument one step further. The essays are of little importance, but I will tell you the authors and the titles anyway; Baudrillard wrote "The Spirit of Terrorism." and Zizek wrote "Welcome to the Desert of the Real!"
The title of Zizek's essay should be familiar to most movie fanatics, it is a direct quote of the Matrix when Morpheus takes Neo to the surface of the Earth to show him the destruction across the globe. They view the ruins of Chicago when Morpheus proclaims, "Welcome to the Desert of the Real[,]" and thus we enter the view points of some upon September 11, 2001.
The main points from these two authors is that America has fallen asleep upon itself. History did not take place in the United States but rather everywhere else but in the United States. They argue that the world to the U.S. citizens was only known through the view point of the t.v. set. Thus the destruction caused by the tragedy that became 9/11 invited the United States back into history. I know, what does this have to do with globalization?
The viewpoint became that the attack of September 11th was on symbols, the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, not on the citizens of the United States. They want to prove that terrorism is the world's cure to the plague which is globalization. The theory is that globalization will create a society without classes, a society without differences, a society of singularity, and the globe is divided upon differences therefore it would not allow any type of system disable its differences.
My argument is simple. If terrorism is to be the cure of singularity then why does it not attack religion. Religions are singular, they wish only to unite the globe under one system of faith. Christians believe the redeemer of the world is Jesus Christ who is the King of kings causing all in the world to call each other brother and sister. Is this is not a decrease of social order and a state of singularity? Should religions therefore not be attacked just as roughly as globalization which is not a system that is bent on taking over the world.
Globalization is not an ugly system like communism which has only a few political leaders who wish to rule the world, but rather a system of markets that fluctuate allowing for growth and savings. Globalization allows people from across the globe to better opportunities as well to the destruction of borders disabling the might of modern day governmental hold upon industries. As pointed by so many economists, a t-shirt today that claims to be made in Hong Kong is falsely advertising as all the material used to make the t-shirt is acquired from different places in the world. The truth, the t-shirt is made in Earth. It is a simple truth with no need of further explanations. With the theory of competitive advantage we can see that globalization is not the plague, but it in fact is the answer.
The title of Zizek's essay should be familiar to most movie fanatics, it is a direct quote of the Matrix when Morpheus takes Neo to the surface of the Earth to show him the destruction across the globe. They view the ruins of Chicago when Morpheus proclaims, "Welcome to the Desert of the Real[,]" and thus we enter the view points of some upon September 11, 2001.
The main points from these two authors is that America has fallen asleep upon itself. History did not take place in the United States but rather everywhere else but in the United States. They argue that the world to the U.S. citizens was only known through the view point of the t.v. set. Thus the destruction caused by the tragedy that became 9/11 invited the United States back into history. I know, what does this have to do with globalization?
The viewpoint became that the attack of September 11th was on symbols, the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, not on the citizens of the United States. They want to prove that terrorism is the world's cure to the plague which is globalization. The theory is that globalization will create a society without classes, a society without differences, a society of singularity, and the globe is divided upon differences therefore it would not allow any type of system disable its differences.
My argument is simple. If terrorism is to be the cure of singularity then why does it not attack religion. Religions are singular, they wish only to unite the globe under one system of faith. Christians believe the redeemer of the world is Jesus Christ who is the King of kings causing all in the world to call each other brother and sister. Is this is not a decrease of social order and a state of singularity? Should religions therefore not be attacked just as roughly as globalization which is not a system that is bent on taking over the world.
Globalization is not an ugly system like communism which has only a few political leaders who wish to rule the world, but rather a system of markets that fluctuate allowing for growth and savings. Globalization allows people from across the globe to better opportunities as well to the destruction of borders disabling the might of modern day governmental hold upon industries. As pointed by so many economists, a t-shirt today that claims to be made in Hong Kong is falsely advertising as all the material used to make the t-shirt is acquired from different places in the world. The truth, the t-shirt is made in Earth. It is a simple truth with no need of further explanations. With the theory of competitive advantage we can see that globalization is not the plague, but it in fact is the answer.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Economics and Batman
Saturday, November 25, 2006
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...
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...
Friday, November 24, 2006
Peak Oil
I know that peak oil has been an interesting topic in the comments on this blog, so while doing some research I found an interesting website for all those who believe the world is running low on peak oil. Hope it helps. You can find the website here. Don't forget to watch the 3 minute interview with Daniel Yergin, one of the co-authors of Commanding Heights, also made into a PBS movie.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The End to the Academic Achievement Gap?
It has been a few years since the No Child Left Behind Act was introduced. It was meant to close the gap between the minority and the white students, yet according to many articles like the one I linked in the title above, the gap has not closed as it had been projected. I won't enter a rant on the government's efficiency in accomplishing their projections, but I will deter from all the journalist who are writing articles to bring light upon the No Child Left Behind Act which has not accomplished its task. Instead I want to discuss something that is directly involved with the students whose test scores are looked upon with curious eyes.
I think we have to begin with some questions, are minority students terrible students? Are whites and asians better students than others? Or perhaps it refers back to family. I think the data is a bit misleading. There are great hispanic, black, indian students. I have met them, studied with them, even enter into conversations full of depth with them.
The case though refers to family. A hispanic family, whose parents work jobs in order to maintain the household, do no have time to speak to their children about the daily news or minor teachings. While as the white family has parents with more free time to support and nurture their children through their school days. I am not going to stereotype the minority groups and explain the theories behind why each group's stereotypical family does not have time to encourage their children in school. Not that they do not want to, but sometimes there is a higher need. Perhaps both parents work leading to the eldest to not worry about school as much as his/her siblings. Other times the parents are never there allowing the child to do as he pleases. There have even been studies upon white families give their children incentives (money, car, others goods) for doing well in school while as, the minority groups usually can not afford to give such incentives to their chidlren.
The No Child Left Behind is a kind a thoughtful policy, but let us face it. You can have all the opportunities you would like, but without allowing the children to have an incentive to study, you only have an open door that leads to an empty room. The tests do not prove that the children of minority groups are less intelligent than the whites and asians. The tests prove that families that are well off create children who study better and have better test taking skills. Yet, if we alter the test and create a test that would test upon survival skills (not neccessarily in the middle of the jungle, but what is needed to survive); we may find the minority students to perform better. It would only make sense as most minorities have spent time and gained experience developing the skills. Now I am not preaching to create policies to close the income gap, only wished to deter the topic from No Child Left Behind. A cute policy, with no gain due to problems it was not meant to solve.
I think we have to begin with some questions, are minority students terrible students? Are whites and asians better students than others? Or perhaps it refers back to family. I think the data is a bit misleading. There are great hispanic, black, indian students. I have met them, studied with them, even enter into conversations full of depth with them.
The case though refers to family. A hispanic family, whose parents work jobs in order to maintain the household, do no have time to speak to their children about the daily news or minor teachings. While as the white family has parents with more free time to support and nurture their children through their school days. I am not going to stereotype the minority groups and explain the theories behind why each group's stereotypical family does not have time to encourage their children in school. Not that they do not want to, but sometimes there is a higher need. Perhaps both parents work leading to the eldest to not worry about school as much as his/her siblings. Other times the parents are never there allowing the child to do as he pleases. There have even been studies upon white families give their children incentives (money, car, others goods) for doing well in school while as, the minority groups usually can not afford to give such incentives to their chidlren.
The No Child Left Behind is a kind a thoughtful policy, but let us face it. You can have all the opportunities you would like, but without allowing the children to have an incentive to study, you only have an open door that leads to an empty room. The tests do not prove that the children of minority groups are less intelligent than the whites and asians. The tests prove that families that are well off create children who study better and have better test taking skills. Yet, if we alter the test and create a test that would test upon survival skills (not neccessarily in the middle of the jungle, but what is needed to survive); we may find the minority students to perform better. It would only make sense as most minorities have spent time and gained experience developing the skills. Now I am not preaching to create policies to close the income gap, only wished to deter the topic from No Child Left Behind. A cute policy, with no gain due to problems it was not meant to solve.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, October 30, 2006
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
