A Discourse on Current Events

Would you move 1000 miles for a job?

duffmann808 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:20:00 GMT

CNN seems to be a wealth of fallacies lately.

This family was devastated when the father lost his job eight years before he was supposed to retire. When offered a job opportunity a thousand miles away, they responded with this...

"The Kerls didn’t want to take the kids out of school. And they couldn’t face the prospect of selling their house anyway with real estate prices plummeting."

So, instead of being happy to have a job in a recession, they ungreatfully decided not to move. Two of the greatest things to happen to me in my life have been moves. At the time both of them seemed daunting and insurmountable, but long run they have both made sense. The reason the Kerls would have moved is because there is more economic activity, freedom and mobility in Texas. The family could have re-established in Texas in a place where things are moving forward instead of stagnating. I have no sympathy (or empathy) for those whose short-sightedness and bad decision making leads to negative outcomes.

Will College become a luxury?

duffmann808 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:14:00 GMT

This discussion is based on the commentary here.

The commentary makes the point that rising fees are pricing some people out of higher education. I think its great. When demand is this high, markets respond with higher prices out of necessity. When more people want something this badly, it does not get any cheaper to produce it. Colleges are bursting at the seams with students, and the scarcity of professors and classrooms affords them the ability to price as they see fit. As the author of the article says....

"They all recognized the need for well-funded, accessible public education"

Is this statement the greatest oxymoron you have ever heard? We are tired of paying fees for our education, so we demand that you tax us more so that we can pay for our education. Some people never learn.....and many of those become college professors.

Liberals V. Darwin

duffmann808 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:37:00 GMT

I find the fact that so many liberals are Darwin followers quite ironic. Sadly, liberals and government workers alike put aside what may be truths in Darwinism, and try to control the forces of nature. As opposed to letting the fittest survive, Liberals and those in the government have taken it upon themselves to decide how and where and when nature should operate.

Reminds me of a trip I took to the Smokey Mountains. While there, we heard a story on the radio of some hikers who had seen a bear attacking a deer. Instead of using their brains and doing what a normal human would do (i.e. run), these brilliant "hikers" went up and started punching the bear. The bear then preceded to attack the "hikers" ruthlessly. The story should be proof to the Liberals/government officials in the Pacific Northwest....Maybe Darwin was right..

Sean Penn is a standout lunatic

duffmann808 — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:34:00 GMT

As you can read here, Sean Penn is wishing Rectal Cancer on anyone who criticizes him. Ironic, seeing as he is pushing for socialized medicine, so wouldn't he be paying for them to get their rectums operated on?

Also of some interest, it never ceases to amaze me how anyone with libertarian views must be crazy because of their views, not in spite of them. They also talked about this over at Divison of Labour.

A short look at Insurance

duffmann808 — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:13:00 GMT

Recently, I have been reading through the study materials for the first actuarial exam and I have come across some very interesting material that gives an eye-opening picture of insurance. In speaking about the mathematics about why "covered losses should be reasonably independent", it says

"For example, an insurer would not insure all the stores in one area against fire, because a fire in one store could spread to the others, resulting in many large claim payments to be made by the insurer."

I think this provides a perfect picture of one of the major problems with the current regulatory strategies of the insurance industries. Insurance allows a large group of people to pool their resources through a company, so that all individuals will be covered in case of a personal or locational catastrophe. In reality, insurers only insure so many people because they expect that not all of them will actually need to make a claim. When a mandate says that insurance can only be sold in states where a license is held, the pool of the insured decreases. What this does is disallow insurers from allowing a proper market to spread the risk around, so that the standard deviation and expected value of an accident increases. If the expected cost of payout for the insurance company increases, you can only expect the premium that the customer is on the hook for to increase. Allowing insurance companies to offer policies to those who wish to buy them, no matter the state, would allow the risk to be further spread, and would lower costs for all involved.

Bierfeldt and Ron Paul Hire the ACLU to file a lawsuit. Oh Lord....

duffmann808 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:27:00 GMT

Ron Paul is a man who is often misunderstood, and misrepresented, by the media and the general public alike. A man with a strong Austrian streak who has written articles and pamphlets for this very website, also ran for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. While there are very valid reasons for him to run for a larger nomination, by doing so he very much gave the sign of the viability of the system which he supposedly believes in. Setting that aside for the time being, there were egregious circumstances involving the Lambert St. Louis International Airport and the Transportation Security Administration and someone in Dr. Pauls campaign. While in town taking care of Ron Paul campaign business, his treasurer was apprehended in part because of the large amount of cash that he had on his person at the time. The TSA "arrested" him and attempted to question him, namely because he was a member of the Campaign for Liberty and the CfL was thought to be a militia by the Missouri state government. The TSA is now being sued on behalf of Mr. Bierfeldt by the ACLU.

The American Civil Liberties Union is a group that has as its goal to uphold the policies set forth by the Constitution of the United States, and seeks to protect the rights and liberties of citizens. While engaging in a noble cause, they have fallen off track somewhere along the line. The group has many good arms that seek to extend freedom to all Americans, but others that greatly destroy personal rights. One of the greatest debates of memory is that of Affirmative Action, the legislation that gives preferential treatment to African Americans and other minorities in lieu of other non-minorities. According to wikipedia, they use Affirmative Action " as a means of redressing past discrimination and achieving a racially diverse student body." In order to do this, minorities are held to different admission standards and are let in without regard to the same rules and regulations that those of majority status are held to. As far as I am concerned, this is giving preferential treatment to "minorities" much the same way that only whites got preferential treatment at some of these same institutions in the past. The problem with this is the people being hurt by this legislation and these rules are not the same people who endured the punishment in the past. The people who were segregated against lived generations ago or at least sought schooling decades ago, and the attempt to reward blacks by giving them preference only hurts them. I would explain my opinion, but I think Thomas Sowell has done so very much better than I could even imagine.

With this being the case, it makes very little sense to me why the ACLU is representing this case. Generally cases of this magnitude are filed and pursued by those within a circle of trust and common belief, and in a political movement there must be lawyers available to pursue this legal action. I feel like Dr. Paul and his treasurer as well as the others involved have allowed for a hailstorm of problems by allowing an organization that stands for and fights for the wrong ideas to be attempting to protect their rights. Much the same way as Jesse Jackson would not be employed to file racism charges for me (a white male), it makes little sense for a fraud of a libertarian organization to be protecting the best hope our movement has had of making some headway in the public arena.

What has AIG done wrong?

duffmann808 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:19:00 GMT

In regards to the bonus fiasco, the answer would be nothing. Here are two reasons why....

1.) Say you have a friend who spends all, or even a good portion of his money gambling. If this friend were to come to you and ask you for a loan, what would you expect him to do with the money? You of course would expect him to gamble it away. Much the same, AIG has to pay salaries and bonuses in order to keep its people employed, and to dissuade those in important positions from moving to a different company. If we can assume that this is true, the government should not be surprised that an influx of money was given out in the form of bonuses. If it truly comes down to it, would the government rather AIG give bonuses to the people who are vital to the success of the company, or would they rather those people leave and AIG completely fail? As can be expected, I did not agree with the bailout in the first place, but if you are going to give a company money to fix its problems, let it fix its problems. If it feels like the best way to fix its problems is to give incentives to the heads of the company, let it. If that does not succeed and the company fails, it is your job to have a pre-agreed comprehensive plan for them to pay back all of the money that was loaned to them. To many times, fingers are pointed outwards by our politicians, when the real problem lies much closer to those voicing their opinions.

2.) As mentioned in a previous blog entry, CEO's and other higher ups in companies are generally compensated for their worth. If a CEO, such as the one at AIG, makes millions of dollars in bonuses, that indicates that the bonuses are tied to a nonverbal promise that he will stay with the company. Bonuses are the business world's way of keeping those who do the things necessary to keep a company moving forward. Therefore, AIG paid these bonuses to keep those in the decision making positions from leaving and occupying relative positions at other firms. AIG prefers to keep those who know the company well, so that the rebuilding can be quicker, smoother and more efficient. If that is not the ultimate goal, then the government should be taking care of the whole deal, because they are incredibly good at being slower, rougher and unbelievably inefficient. AIG knows what it has to do to get on the right track, but the ideal situation is one where executives dont have to be retrained, where fixes dont have to be sought from outside the company and where markets can create an easier way out of the situation.

The ultimate slap in the face of basic economics, the moral hazard of the whole situation seems straight out of a sitcom.

Obama "stimulus" put to work

duffmann808 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:49:00 GMT

One common fallacy that is perpetuated every day is the thought that spending by the government "fixes" things. It seems important for many of the same articles to also point out how certain spending also "creates" jobs. The statements are not based on making true statements that advance the argument, but rather normative statements that allow fallacious principles to build up a pyramid of falsehoods. Barack Obama is more than a man in the sense that few politicians have in the history of the world, notable exception who will not be named in order to keep order. Obama can make any absurd statement sound reasonable, despite the obvious fallacious principles it rests itself upon. An example: "Because of this plan, stories like the one we're celebrating here in Columbus will soon take place all across this nation," as found here. In this statement, Barry is commenting on how the "stimulus" package will "create" new jobs. Lets look step by step....

1.) In order for new jobs to be created, a basic economic principle is that there must be new need. We can not hire someone unless there is new work to be done in either the goods or services sector of the economy. The need for a new worker in any segment comes about because someone spends the money out of their pocket. A government trying to spend money belies the fact of "helping" based on how the government gets their money.

2.) There is truly one way that the government ultimately gets the money that they use; they steal it. No matter how you look at it, governments take money against peoples' will. If you asked any citizen of any taxable economy (note:every country on Earth), they would rather keep their money than give it away. The number one reason for this is the basic functionality of humanity: the person who best knows how to spend my money is me. I know how I think, I know what I want, I know what I think will benefit me both in the short and the long term. It does not matter whether I am always right, because the learning process is one best served by individuals spending their own money, not by bureaucrats trying and failing. If I think my best option is to buy a python and let it live in my house, that is my choice, and as long as I do nothing to harm anyone else it should not matter what I do with my money. This all goes to emphasize the point that a government can not know what is best for each individual person, because they can not reasonably and efficiently go and talk to 200+ million people every day to see what every person thinks.

3.) This fact means that the government taking billions and trillions of tax dollars, over multiple decades, to "stimulate" the economy is based on fallacious principles. If the government was more efficient any of the time, they would be efficient all of the time. The most effective and reasonable tool of all time for allowing efficiency and rewarding people for correct decision making is the market. Not only is the market the best way to allow correct decisions to be rewarded, it is the most efficient and scalable punishment for poor decisions. If you take a higher risk you get a higher reward, but also a higher punishment. It can be no other way, until the government itself becomes involved.

If these three things are true, citizens are entitled to keep their money and spend as they see fit. In addition, if businesses keep the money they deserve and have earned, they allow the economy and credit markets to better function. This in turn creates another whole segment of capital and fluency in all markets and directions.

After reading the above sentences and paragraphs, one must look at how the government can create jobs. The government believes injecting capital (cash) into an endeavor is the most likely way to make it successful. They are at least half right this time, which is about fifty percent better than they tend to be. Injecting capital into an operation is the surest way to help it, but only if doing so implies a need for that operation to do their best to make a profit. This happens when citizens and other businesses spend money, by creating a need for the company to make profit. If the company does not make profit, citizens will stop buying from them, since they will be broadcast as a failure. This is how injecting capital can successfully bolster a company, and likely create jobs. Where the government and Keynsians in general steer the wrong direction is in thinking that the capital itself is the driving force, which is false. The driving force is the need to profit, because businesses that dont profit dont stay open. In the current situation, what will business owners or shareholders likely do if their government capital injection does not work? In a market the only thing to blame is the choices businesses make, but in this situation the government is available to blame. It could be the way they deal out the capital, the amounts the delegate or what restrictions they make on the company, etc. If a company fails after receiving the injections, they will only expect further help, even though a partial reason for failure is going about the solution the same way the initial problem was caused. I would not heal a burn by putting my hand on a candle. This is obvious in real life, but the situation at hand seems to be an imaginary world to the people to who it should be the realest. Electing politicians is supposed to be based on the election of the person most Americans believe can help the most, but has it not turned into a populartity contest?

How we speak

duffmann808 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:52:00 GMT

Much of sociological thought is formed around basic ideas that are the predilections of other ideas. One large idea is that language forms the foundation for human interaction. If there was no language, it is thought, there would be a lack of society in its common sense. If there was no word for road, it would be very hard for a road to be built. This idea may have flaws in some senses, but ignoring these, we can look at how current common economic terms are structured and used. Once economics moved from a mainly foreign social science to one based in English speaking countries, the terms used to describe phenomena were changed. In languages such as German phrases are based around correctly identifying a situation. Instead of scarcity, Karl Menger used "Insufficient quantity", in his seminal work Principles of Economics. The phrase insufficient quantity is not only a definition of a problem, but gives an idea to what extent it can be solved, whereas scarcity allows the brain to wander. Point being, the translation of economics from a foreign language may create a barrier that can not be translated. Maybe English does not allow the correct explanations, or perhaps the laziness of English allows for shortcuts to be taken. Taking a shortcut often lead to problems, this case notwithstanding. One can wonder how different subjects could be learned from a different point of view, but it is essential to learn different topics in the context they were initially written. I write this only because of my reading Menger's aforementioned book. Austrian economics is a term that too few people know, too few understand, and even fewer appreciate. Austrian economics takes real world human situations and places them in the realm of reality. Whereas many other school of Economic Thought prefer to function around hypotheses, Austrianism looks at how things really work. In reading the prolific book by Dr. Menger, I have come to appreciate even more the school which gives me a reason to love economics.

Oppose Stimulus? Dont take the money?

duffmann808 — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:17:00 GMT

In a commentary written today by Paul Begala on CNN.com, he makes many assertations about the spending of the stimulus package by those opposed to the very idea of it. Fallacious thinking does form the foundation for socialism, so it is important to look at the basic steps used to make certain assertations, and find if they hold water under further inspection. In the beginning, Begala states his main point that those opposed to stimulus spending should not take or be allowed to take the money doled out by it. Looking at this objectively begets the truth behind his thinking. This could be expanded to mean that me opposing federally funded schools should follow by me not going to one. I indeed do go to the state funded schools, and see no correlation (nor causation) to his point. If a policy has been enacted, refusing to follow the dictations it has set serves no purpose. This just perpetuates the initial problem of government spending; with no profit incentive, government has no reason to be efficient. I bet that Begala, as a former Clinton strategist, sees it unfit that Microsoft has a very large share of the computer software market, yet I am very sure that at least one of the computers he works on every day has some Microsoft component.

Has he followed what he believes by strict adherence? No.

Saying that opponents should not take any of the money shows his true wish.....that his party of socialists be allowed to spend the money as they see fit. Not liking partisan politics makes me feel objective in stating that objective individuals need to realize that Democrats as a group look at spending money like a kid in a candy store. Allowing for the absolute correction of problems by intervention, some of the worlds biggest problems have been created.

Further on, Begala states

"Under the Bush-Sanford economic theories, South Carolina's unemployment rate has reached 9.5 percent -- among the highest in the nation. But if Gov. Sanford wants to continue those policies, good luck to him."

This is a very narrow, uninformed view of the situation. Saying Bush or any one person is responsible can not be further from the point, while claiming that allowing markets to function is the cause of problems just shows a lack of true economics knowledge. Markets function until such point that there is some factor that blocks proper market function, allowing for the fact that market correction is not an instant process. This market blockage can be caused by a multitude of factors, including minimum wage, rent controls, quality standards etc. When these and other "taxes" are enacted on a system, there is immediately a loss in consumer and producer surplus. Surplus is the benefit that a group gets above and beyond what it receives in tangible benefits. When producers lose some of their surplus, they are less likely to hire that one extra person. When one less person has a job, that person has x less dollars. When x less dollars are being spent at businesses, those businesses have x less dollars to pay in salary to workers. Begala insists that not intervening in a market is the cause of high unemployment, neglecting to look at a multitude of factors which would be too long and tedious to write in this entry.

Begala goes on to talk about how Gov. Sanford (the topic of his ranting), derides neighborhood electric vehicles. Begala states that these vehicles "create jobs, save money and reduce pollution". The creation of jobs is a zero sum gain in this point. If there are more electric vehicles being bought, who loses? The answer, unsurprisingly, is those who created the normal vehicles of yesteryear, aka Ford, Gm, Chrysler, etc. When these jobs are lost, who gets the blame but those who saw no initial intervention as the solution to a problem. Saving of money is not literally true, as buying new vehicles, paying for power, paying for repairs etc. can not be forgotten costs. Pollution from initial vehicle usage can cause a decrease in pollution, only until the pollution from extra power production is considered. Thinking logically, one should realize that these new electric cars have to be powered by something, and that something is the outlets in the walls of many garages. If this is how cars are to be powered, power plants will see a surplus of demand for their product. When a surplus of demand for a good is realized, introduction to economics students learn how the price will go up. When Beanie Babies were the cats meow ten years ago, the price of them rose as the desire to purchase them increased. Therefore, the costs of running an electric cars can not be considered lower than gas powered cars, in the explicit cost scenario. To some, the thought of "saving the earth" may hold some virtue.

Through the rest of the article, Begala spouts the socialist calling card ideas. With these, he basically shows how government spending will increase the welfare of the country. As empirical data has shown, decreasing taxes shows the biggest increase in tax revenues. Unsurprisingly, Begala's solution is to allow taxes to increase, assuming there is a positive, and not negative correlation.

Salary Freeze = Longer Recession

duffmann808 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:30:00 GMT

Reading through the CNN.com homepage, a logical person can not help but be appalled. Among articles of some substance about real issues affecting Americans today, one will find articles speaking of the recessions' affect on Hip Hop stars spending. Is this the best that can be done?? Apparently not, as there is a large covering of the amount of businesses who are freezing workers salaries. Common sense, individual knowledge and any economic understanding apparently are not part of many peoples knowledge base. According to the site, "25% of companies plan a salary freeze", with the most likely to sustain a freeze in pay being the CEO's.

First, lets look at what a salary comprises. The amount some one person is paid is the direct amount of their worth to the company for which they work. If someone is paid $15 per hour, ignoring for the moment minimum wage, there is $15 per hour of value in that person at the said profession. This being said, a company freezing salaries says that the people are only as important this year as they were last year. In all reality, the exact opposite is true. Workers only have incentive to decrease their opportunity cost of working, until such a point where the pay they receive encourages them to work harder in order to create a profit for their firm. This being said, some will say that firms are freezing the pay of their workers to lower the cost of running their business in order to increase profits. This is true assuming that all workers are in the firm in the initial hopes of maximizing profits for the firm, but many workers in said firms will only be working in the firm to receive their pay and will do a moderation of work at or above the amount they have to do to keep their jobs. This being true, workers do not profit maximize for the most part, and therefore a salary freeze actually gives them less incentive to profit maximize. If no additional benefit can be gained from working harder or more efficiently, the extra work will not be undertaken.

Secondly, Chief Executive Officers are typically the top of the pyramid as far as company organization goes. This being true, they are also the closest to the owners of the company, whether those owners are stockholders or a small group of individuals. This being said, they have the closest connection to profit maximizing incentive. Very often these CEO's have direct contact with the owners and therefore have a direct responsibility for making a profit. Not always, but many times, a company will experience problems and a CEO will be the first fired. This is the case because a CEO has the greatest risk undertaken when taking the job. They are the top of the food chain, and their ability to communicate through the ranks bears a direct correlation to their success. If they are successful, they tend to get benefits, whether these benefits are a bonus or a corporate jet. If they are unsuccessful, they generally need to find another job. The high risk generates a necessity of a greater reward for these select few, which typically means higher salaries. Many people do not understand why CEO's get paid more than anyone else at the firm, and seem to revel in them losing jobs. If there was not a direct correlation between worth of CEO's and their pay, they would make considerably less.

Finally, there are certain industries in the USA where regulation has played a large part in all intermediate steps of production for the firms in that industry. An example would be the automotive industry, where regulations affect everything from the amount they pay their employees to the emission standards of their final product. All of these regulations have the unintended consequences of creating a barrier to efficiency for the firm as a whole as well as for all intermediate steps of production. If we saw less regulation and therefore less market intervention we would see greater efficiency marketwide, as well as greater profit margins for these companies.

The Auto Industry

duffmann808 — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:05:00 GMT

In recent days and weeks, the focus of the media has been on the auto industry. The fallacies are abound in every story that the media tells, and the poor economics we have come to expect from them also is still alive and well. The common consensus of the partisan media(i.e. all of them), is that the auto industry failed because the companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler) made cars that people did not want to buy, and the executives of the companies were too greedy. The first point may be true, because if people liked the cars they would likely buy them, but the reasoning behind it is almost universally incorrect. The auto industry has mandates provided it by state and federal governments on how their cars have to run. A certain amount of emissions are allowed, certain vehicles have governors that restrict the speed above a certain point, and many other restrictions that dictate how a car can run. These restrictions have created a barrier in the automobile market, between the consumer and the producer. If the consumers truly desire cars that are for lack of a better word "green", they will demand them. What we have seen in the past few years is that these people DO NOT desire these cars, because if they did the auto industry would not be in trouble. What we have here is the government telling a producer how they can produce cars, and in the process they are disabling the normal functioning of that sector of the economy, and further hurting all of us.

The second point is completely incorrect for a multitude of reasons. When people say "greedy", they are implying that someone is demanding compensation above what they deserve. If someone demands compensation above what they deserve, a non barriered market will prohibit them from doing so, because there will be cheaper alternatives in that market (in this case the labor market) that the firm can ultimately hire for a lower price. When the firms in the market continue to hire these employees at a price below the "greedy" price, they will drive down the price that the "greedy" person expects to receive, until the point where that person is no longer "greedy". The fact that greed is seen as a negative act is somewhat of a misnomer, at least in the proper functioning of a society and an economy. People need greed, if we didnt have it none of us would be alive. We need to be "greedy" enough to demand food, clothing, shelter and whatever amenitites we desire, and we have a pretty nice system set up for us to recieve them. Whenever we have the desire to be "greedy", we do some form of work to create a good or service that someone else sees fit to compensate us for. Next we use the received compensation to buy whatever "greedy" goods we want. This is not a bad thing, but a perfect tradoff of goods, services and desires. Greed is a misnomer in its current usage, because greed currently implies that a person receives things that they do not deserve, which again is not the proper definition. According to wikipedia.org, "Greed is the selfish desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others". I do agree that if I buy a good or receive payment for a service, that denies it to someone else, buy that is not a bad thing. If I buy a good or service, and someone else demands the same good or service, there is now greater desire in the producers eyes to actually produce more of that product. The more and more that is demanded in the market, the more and more the producer will make. The more the producer makes, the lower the price the market will dictate, and the greater the benefit to society of the lowered prices. Greed therefore is not a vice, as Catholicism says, but is the driving force among human interactions, and the reason why market economics always drives us to equilibrium.

To adress the initial point of the last paragraph, the executives of automobile companies are not greedy, just experts at what they do. Many of them are in their positions because of their economic expertise, or vast knowledge in some other field. The reason they can demand such high wages is that they are deserving of them. Humans have few outliers in the realm of education and intelligence, which is why we henceforth reward those who make it their pursuit to achieve the highest in either or both fields. The reward for these men and women is that they receive a higher salary, because they have done the intermediate work to receive that compensation. As was mentioned before, if their asking price were too high, there would surely be at least one other person who could be offered the position for a more reasonable price. Basic market supply and demand works for this market just like any other, although the controls attempting to regulate it have created a disposition between the buyers and sellers of the market.

Graduating Early

duffmann808 — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:32:00 GMT

A common option for high school students is the ability to graduate one or even two semesters early. This enables them to get a head start on college or even work in the months leading up to college to help afford the mountainous expenses they will surely incur. Recently, my local school district disabled the ability of students to graduate early. Even with the proper credit requirements, all students must graduate when the school dictates. Ignoring for the moment the obvious problem with a government authority telling people what they can and can not do, there is a large flaw in this. My problem lies in what the income consequences will be for the teachers. The teachers have a salary that is already set, and will surely not go down. With this new rule, students no longer have the incentive to take summer school classes, or to not take study halls, in order to better themselves. The teachers salaries will not go down, despite the decrease in actual workload. Some will question whether the teachers will have more students, but many schools will likely hire MORE teachers to handle the influx of extra school year courses by students. This will end up costing more than any payment summer school teachers would have received. Aggravation has set in on the part of many students, as they try to better themselves and advance their lives, yet they are set back by the very institution that is there to help them forward.

Just another example of government overstepping its bounds and regressing the population it is supposed to be helping.

How should we be run?

duffmann808 — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:25:00 GMT

I have been a libertarian since I was about 12 years old, because even at that age I could tell the virtue of individuals making their own choices and deciding what is best for them personally. It bothers me that even to this day there are still people in our country and around the world who believe that the government knows how to best serve our needs and how to best spend our money. I will therefore give my interpretation of how the government structure of the USA should be set up if I could ideally allow it to be.

1.) The Federal level of government would be akin to the current local and municipal governments of today. The government would be small, and there would be very little for it to do, because in my opinion every time the Federal government gets involved with something there is a massive loss of total utility in the system and a very large loss of efficiency. The government would be allowed to function as a sort of small entity with a few distinct functions.

Establishing(or in this case continuing) the military. Every country no matter its size should have a military to protect itself, and as a world power the USA should always have one. The spending on the military would probably be the second biggest component of the government spending, but in my mind would be equally as important as the first biggest.

Creating a currency that is allowed to fluctuate and is of some value. The national government is much better prepared to set forth the way for money to be created and spent, but I would much rather see it set forth in a way that actually gives the money itself value, as opposed to the worthless paper in the pockets of citizens today. This currency would be the largest part of the governments spending, mostly in the printing of the currency, but the currency itself would be tied to something of value to create an actual currency

2.) The state government would be slightly larger than the federal government, but would ideally itself be rather small in order to hold the efficiency in check and to allow all functions it carries out to be the most succinct and proper. The state government would have more control over the actual policies that are enacted within each state, so that if the citizens of a state desire a certain property they can get the legislation enacted, and the people can have their way. This also creates the opportunity for citizens who disapprove of the policies to move to a different state in order to get away from the policies they disagree with. I see this as far superior to a country where many undesirable laws are made by a large federal government, with no real options for moving away from these legislations.

3.)The local bodies would merely mitigate small disputes and pass ordinances to create an even more perfect atmosphere for the citizens of their community.

I believe that if we were to have actual businessmen in the government there would not be many of the problems/infringements that currently entangle and complicate our system. We allow people who have not seen the proper function of a market to make decisions that affect the rest of the country and the world, and it has propagated into an extremely large problem, hassle and forfeiture of rights, without reason or rhyme.

Krugman proves whats popular isnt always right....

duffmann808 — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:25:00 GMT

I could start this blog with a long winded declaration of what Paul Krugman has done, but I assume that most people have at least heard the rhetoric that he spews. For the longest time, I have heard that the Nobel Prize in all of its forms is a prize that shows the accomplishments of those who are the leaders of their fields. If you have some great advance, and your field is fitting, you will receive the Nobel Prize for what you have done. Today a regressive individual was awarded a progressive prize. As opposed to giving the prize to someone with an original, forward thinking positive thought, the prize has been awarded to the exact opposite. Krugman twice weekly writes about his views on the economy, but more so on his thoughts of the world and the United States at large. He wins a prize today for economics, when he has made no great contributions to the field in any persons recent memory. Paul Krugman has done a great deal to advance the liberal agenda to like minded and non-thinking individuals who swarm to the propaganda like moths to a light. I have seldom been as disappointed in something I truly believed in as I am today in the board that awards excellence in my profession/hobby. I hope that the field as a whole does not continue in the direction that Krugman hopes to take it during the seldom times that he decides to actually write about economics. The awardance of this prize just further proves the lack of a need for the prize in the first place, because it does nothing to advance the world as a whole, nor the economy. I am depressed, sad and completely disappointed with the Nobel Prize commitee and will no longer place any emphasis on what they say or who they award.