True Conservatism

What to do this election cycle

2012-02-04T11:37:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure. One thing I won't do is vote for the current president, President Barack Obama. That part is simple. But what do people like me do who love the radical domestic economic views that Ron Paul has. He wants to get rid of much of the federal government and the Federal Reserve or at least largely downsize its power. He wants to have law enforcement focus its attention on what the federal government's law enforcement is suppose to focus on. I'm not a legalize all drugs guy, but I do wish the Fed would stop worrying so much about Pot and more so on Immigration and violence.

Paul though is an isolationists. I do support some of those foreign policy views. Lets stop rebuilding nations with our money when we are in such tough times here at home. Lets close down some of these military bases for sure. But we can't turn our back on Iran and other Middle East countries that are not kind to civilization including American Civilization. And lets not turn our back on Israel of course.

But the other Candidates do not all have the best history. Rick Santorum wants to benefit some businesses over others and is not a complete Free Trade supporter as I am. Gingrich has a lot of ideas, but that's part of his problem. He has had a lot of ideas that were not truly conservative. He might trust his own intellect(something he does have a lot of) over his principals sometimes.

Romney is not a true conservative with Libertarian views at all. We know about healthcare and my guess is he would even grow the department of education even more based not on his proposed policies but his principals. I believe he trusts government more than he says. If he did not he would have been a smaller state government governor. He also does not have the radical tax plan and local economics plan that I would favor such as a complete overhaul in the tax code as Gingrich supports.

With all this and the fact that my future favorites such as the Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindel and maybe Mitch Daniels are a term away from running. But These guys and maybe Governor Chris Christie are future stars that I can truly support.

From a philosophical standpoint Michele bachmann was the closest to the positions that I hold. But she was not a real strong candidate and might have been before her time. I think for a female, and it might be unfortunate, but it might be the state of our society, she might need to be a governor or at least have more experience before running for President although she does have the views that I would largely favor.

In the end we still have to pick someone. The truth be told, I would love for Newt Gingrich to win election. Get some of his better ideas on economics passed and be a strong leader although that is a questionable flaw of his. But I hope he runs, and then in a perfect world, maybe in four years Republicans nominate someone new. But then again, if he does poorly, Republicans would probably lose again to Democrat Secretary of the State Clinton. But at this point, I believe that I have to put my faith and support behind Gingrich for the Republican nomination. Although whoever runs against the current president, will get my vote.

My take on the Pastor Robert Jeffress

2011-10-13T09:33:00.000-07:00

Lots of media attention has been spent on the comments of Pastor Robert Jeffress. Jeffress is a First Baptist Church pastor in Texas who introduced Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry at a recent event. He was not picked by Perry to introduce him, the event staff made that decision.

Pastor Jeffress has said and continues to say that Mormonism is a Cult and not Christianity. This sparked controversy in this election cycle for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. Would I vote for Perry over Mitt Romney because Perry is an Evangelical Christian and Romney is a Mormon? NO! Their differences in faith would make no difference in my election decision. If I remember correctly, Lincoln was not an orthodox Christian and in fact his opponent Douglass was more of an orthodox Christian. But I'm glad Lincoln was President. Many today consider Lincoln our greatest President ever in fact. Other devout "Christians" have done immoral things while in office. So for this pastor to make a person's religion so central to the election was a mistake. But I do not blame him entirely and do not know if that was his goal.

The media has been all over this "controversy" from the start. But why? Is it because he made this such a central issue in the campaign? No. Its because the media is wondering if the other candidates, including Perry, believes that Mormonism is a Cult or a Christian Religion. They want to spark controversy where there should be no controversy.

To be a devout Biblical Evangelical Christian, one must profess to believe in the Word of God, the Bible. If that person believes the Bible but then says that other faiths are just as good or that other faiths are on par with Christianity, then they are not really devout Biblical Evangelical Christians. A devout believer has a top ultimate goal. Their job is to help the poor for sure. They should help widows and protect the needy. But their ultimate responsibility is to spread the Gospel of Christ and try to bring about new believers that will spend eternity in Heaven. If they sacrifice that for whatever reason, they are not allowing themselves to be an ultimate witness for the calling of Christ.

I have not met a Mormon that was not a good person. I believe that me and Mitt Romney would get along real well. But if my belief in the Word of God was contrary to his belief in Mormonism, then as a Christian I would be called to the purpose of helping him become a Christian and have a personal relationship with Christ. To do otherwise would not only be a disservice to Christ but a disservice to him. As the Bible says that the punishment for Sin is Hell. If I as a Christian are to believe that and I believe that the only way to heaven is through a personal relationship with Christ, how can I retract my statement that any faith, whether Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or Catholic Christianity, is a false teaching and that those people are not true "Christian believers"? Do this in a respectful manner. Do not protest outside their churches. And do not introduce candidates for President under that banner. But for the Sake of Christ try to reach the lost.

The media wants to make this an issue because of our cultural relativism world that we live in today. That the only wrong in life is to tell someone else they they are wrong. That the only right is to be open armed to everyone and to not chastise or criticize. The reality is that if a Christian truly loved the lost and wanted them to repent and accept Christ Jesus as their personal savior, the mean cruel thing to do would be to allow that person to go through life without being criticized or shown the true ways which then causes that person to spend eternity in Hell.

Pastor Jeffress was wrong to bring that subject up in that setting. But to think that he is wrong or a bad person for believing what the Bible says is so ignorant that one must believe that there is a different motivation here. I believe that motivation is to sidetrack Republicans from keeping their focus on the real issue. Get a person in the White House that will get this nation back on track.

How the Fair Tax is not Regressive

2011-10-12T14:56:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain, now a candidate for the Republican nominee for President, is proposing a 999 tax plan that would put a 9 percent tax on income, 9 percent tax on business, and a 9 percent sales tax as a tax system that would replace the entire tax code. This plan is not permanent and eventually becomes the "Fair Tax". The Fair Tax would replace the entire tax code that we currently have and replace it with a simple 23% sales tax. The number is not official but it would be around that amount.

The purpose of this blog entry will be to explain how the number one argument against this tax system, its regressiveness, is false. Regressive meaning it will penalize the poor and middle class more so than the rich. Our current tax system in progressive in that it taxes rich people more as you make more money. That is absolute truth contrary to what you see in the media and by some on the left who try to mischaracterize the truth.

The reason Cain's "Fair Tax" is NOT regressive is because of a number of reasons:

First: The elimination of the Payroll tax. All workers who work legally and are paid legally pay two taxes on Medicare and Social Security even if they end up paying no other Federal Income Tax (FICA). That tax is roughly 7%. In reality it is 14% because your employer must match that tax with what is termed their "payroll tax". Now businesses are not stupid. When they hired you they took into consideration what it costs to hire you and adjust your pay accordingly. In other words, you would be paid slightly more if not for this payroll tax. Well now this tax is eliminated. Thus not only do you not pay that tax, but your employer will likely pay you more since they no longer have to match your contribution as well.

Second: You get a Pre-bate check for all products up to the poverty level. In other words, whatever the government statistic is for what it would cost to raise a family and pay for food to feed that family and other necessities, you would receive a check to cover that part of the tax. In other words, the "Fair Tax" will only be a sales tax on items you buy that are above the necessity level. Thus the poorest among us will continue to not pay taxes on those items. If your income is only at the level in which you can only afford the basic necessities of life, you will still not be paying taxes to the federal government on those necessary items.

Third: With businesses no longer paying taxes, it will now be easier to get a job and wage rates are likely to rise as well. this helps the poor and the working class, as well as the middle class more than anyone. That is not regressive that is amazing!

Fourth: this tax will not cause the price to change that much. Some are confused because you were just told that the tax would be a new sales tax of roughly 23%. That is true. But currently due to our tax structure where all businesses pay taxes, and often in large amounts, those taxes are passed down already into the price of goods. You just don't see it. When a business provides the raw materials for a good, that business is taxed on its profits. The business that transports the goods to the company that makes it into a saleable item also pays taxes. The marketing firm that is paid to advertise the product is also paying taxes. And finally the store and company that you buy from as a consumer, also pays taxes. Those taxes are passed down to you as the customer. Why? Because the money companies use to pay those taxes are obviously from their constomers. So when all those taxes are eliminated, as they would be under the Fair Tax, prices would drop. Many economist believe roughly as much as 20-22%. Thus when the Fair tax is then placed on that good, the price will only go back up to where it was originally and maybe just slightly more. But hey remember earlier, you are making more money now and you are not paying income taxes, so you have more money to spend anyways.

Lastly: The tax is only on new items bought not old or used items. Thus since most working class people buy "Durable" items that are most often used, such as a house or car, they will not be paying taxes on it. It is the more wealthy that buy new things, they will pay the "Fair Tax".

This tax system is not regressive. It will help the poor in fact. There are concerns that I have for it. But those concerns are not NEAR the concerns I have with the current tax structure. Thus I can fully support this new tax structure. I would also support the Flat tax as well. But the current tax system, is a failure and is outdated... and quite frankly, should never have been started to begin with.

In Defense of Derek Dooley

2011-10-10T06:48:00.000-07:00

In a shift away from the political or economic discussion, I'm going to give my take on Dooley and his football coaching staff in regards to what they should be doing with this team.

I'm one of the most passionate Tennessee Football fans I know. My Ringback tone is Rocky Top and my actual ringtone is John Ward saying "Its Football Time in Tennessee!" I read every News Sentinel article on the football and basketball team for that matter. I also have a subscription for GVX 247 to get up to the minute recruiting information and other deeper sports information than you can get from the main sports page of Knoxnews where they have to cover all sorts of other sports news. So some would say my passion might blind me from reality. No my passion is what brings to light the reality to me.

Our starting defense is composed of a DE that has have multiple knee surgeries and is not the same player he game to TN to be when he was much lighter and faster out of high school. The other DE is our "stud" pass rusher but can barely get to the QB because while he is our best, he was not recruited out of high school like many of the starting DE at the other SEC schools. I know because he is from the Chattanooga area. He was good and recruited, but not as a guy to come in day one and be a stud like many of the other DE in this league are. Our DTs include a guy who was suppose to play DE at a high level. The other kid from Catholic that I love everything about did not originally go to Tennessee to the the Starting DT as a sophomore. A guy like him is not suppose to start. And he came as an OL but was not good enough there so they moved him to DT where he was more needed. He is suppose to be the guy that plugs up the middle on early down plays when the starter is hurt or tired. The guy that was projected to start at DT-Nose Guard has been kicked off the team in Hughes. Their backups are also players that have converted from other positions or are also young.

Our LBs were suppose to be a stud from West TN in King, a stud from Virginia in Askew, and Herman Lathers. Instead the first two have done nothing like many of the other Kiffin recruited kids and the latter has a broken foot. Instead we have a guy who was a 3star RB that has converted to MLB and two Freshmen linebackers that are arguably our best Pro prospects on Defense. They are Freshmen none the less. We have Seniors who sometimes back up these guys and starts in Nickel situations only.

In our secondary, we were suppose to have Jackson the best player on the team, another stud who can't get into school in Lofton, and a stud at CB that was a trouble maker and was also kicked off a while ago in 5 star athlete Vinson. Instead our best CB is a converted WR. Our second best CB is having to play safety because our best player on the entire team got kicked off. We have a converted professional baseball player at the other safety position that had everyone excited because of the hits he puts on people. His cover skills are very low, and he is still trying to relearn how to play a sport he did not play for years before now. We have a JUCO guy competing with a Senior(Evans) who was at best suppose to be a pure backup if not third string CB when recruited as a 3star guy. We also have a who I do feel will be good one day but not good enough to play big minutes now in Coleman. Our back up safety is a Freshmen and our other CB is often a kid from Tennessee who is a great athlete but was not suppose to be a starter on a team that was suppose to have multiple studs who have been dismissed from the team.

That is out Defense. We have some really young guys who are suppose to be really good. We have had two Freshmen groups come in under Dooley in which many are making contributions and being productive players young in their careers which is a good sign. We have a good and could be great recruiting class coming in. This would be the second in a row that were really good but this one could be great. I have not even began to talk about our offense which is even YOUNGER if you could believe it. We have a new strength coach in his first year there to add strength to the team.

This team is not good. But we are not suppose to be good. We are suppose to be good next year. And maybe great the year after. If that does not happen, then I will begin to question this coaching staff. for Heaven's sake lets not try to judge Dooley and his staff now as if they are suppose to be wining this year.

We cannot stop the run because our DL is small and not deep. Our best DT this year is suppose to be a kid named Arthur Jeffery Jr. You recognize the name? No! Not unless you follow recruiting like I do. He can't get on the field. Our LBs are young and our DBs are not good yet because of the attrition. We can't blitz much because of the youth and therefore can't get pressure because our DL is not good enough to do it without help. Lets relax a bit. I can write a a column on the offense but it would sound the same. In fact we have been hurt more there possibly. Next year if we are not back on track as a top 25 team in the nation... then I will begin to question Dooley. But as a coach... its way too early with what team he took over. Lets wait until his recruiting classes can get up there.. Lets wait until way over half our team is not Freshmen and Sophomores and many of the other starters who are not young are 3 star guys that have not been kicked off the team or left already. Lets be patient. We said we would be... Lets follow through with that.

Companies Shipping Jobs overseas?

2011-09-11T18:57:00.000-07:00

Its been a while since I have blogged due to school and golf. Thought I'd drop in and discuss something we did in class recently when I was evaluated by one of my Administrators.

I blogged about whether America still makes "stuff" anymore a few weeks ago. Today I will speak about something along the same lines. If you read that blog before this one you will understand that most factories and other manufacturing jobs that are lost in America are not lost due to companies shipping those jobs overseas for cheaper labor. Most are lost due to the progress in the realm of technology and thus productivity is much higher and we need fewer workers in manufacturing because of this. Kind of like the decline of farming that began years ago despite not having a drop in production due to the better technology.

Although this is true, companies still often DO ship jobs overseas due to cheaper labor. Should that happen? Should we allow it? Is it a good thing?

First the morality of the issue. We in America like to talk about hating some people's speech but honoring their right to say what they want because the Constitution says: Congress shall make no law... restricting free speech. Yet we often say that companies should not ship jobs overseas. Given the fact that a company is a free enterprise and independent company that is not owned by congress or any other government entity, is it moral to restrict their freedom to move anywhere? Would you force a person who wanted to move out of America to stay in America? North Korea does that, so does Cuba. I find it immoral to restrict a company from doing as they want to do in order to please their stockholders who own the company.

On a more economic note is it hurtful for our economy? The answer is no if that company is freely making this decision without government pressure or regulation forcing it to make a decision outside of the Free Market. Meaning unless crazy high taxation, or regulation, entitlements for workers, or some other unconstitutional force is forcing companies to make these decisions. If a company freely chooses to leave without these being the reasons, then this company sending jobs overseas is a good thing for the economy although hurtful for some workers.

If a business sends some jobs overseas it is in essence saying that those jobs are low skilled jobs that can be done by low paid low skilled workers in other countries that can thus more efficiently perform those tasks. When this happens, the companies keep their costs down and are more competitive in our economy. This allows them to keep prices lower than they would be if those jobs were kept here in America.

Now some would argue: But if those jobs are kept in America then that is more money and more jobs and thus that helps the economy. That is incorrect and believed by many people because they do not understand trade-offs. If inefficient jobs are kept in the country, this means more resources (IE: money) is used on this production which means fewer resources to be used on more efficient areas. In other words, the jobs saved by continuing to do something inefficient is dwarfed by the jobs that are lost, when those resources (IE: money) are not used in efficient ways. Let me close by giving you a local example:

Would you argue that Tennessee should save jobs by refusing to buy oranges from Florida or California in an effort to keep "Orange farms" around here in Tennessee? No one would argue for this because they would say: Those oranges can be made in Florida and California more cheaply thus saving Tennessee Consumers more money to spend in other areas that can put Tennesseans to work in more efficient areas. It works the same way when countries trade with each other. We just don't understand that and thus most Americans are not happy when companies send some work to be done overseas.

My take on the Debt Deal

2011-08-02T18:35:00.000-07:00

I might in the future comment on this post to add/revise some of this information as I will be no doubt reading many articles written by economists that I follow. I confess, many of my ideas that I write about on here come from other people. Many ideas are mine. But most of my views are based in large part on the ideas and beliefs of those that I study. I add/revise them to fit my own belief system. But I study those other guys a lot. Now back to the current Debt Deal.

On surface I am against the compromise. To briefly sum up: Small rise in the Debt Ceiling for small cuts to spending up front to non-defense and non-entitlement areas. All these cuts will be cut over a period of probably 10 years. The debt ceiling rise is immediate. So truly these cuts are marginal at best. Then a committee is formed to determine what other cuts are possible and the President will be able to get another larger rise in the debt if the commission can come up with cuts that are agreed upon. If the committee cannot come up with cuts, automatic cuts take place. Most of these cuts(little more than 50%) will come from defense spending. Other cuts from entitlement programs. Its amazing that Defense gets the largest cut, when off all the major programs, Defense is one of the few Constitutional obligations our federal government actually has. The later vote on a balanced budget means nothing, Democrats will not support it.

The truth is drastic change is needed and needed fast. Our debt is a problem that is growing out of control. The public in America is far too weak to mustard up the courage to allow what needs to happen take place. Senior Citizens (on average the most wealthy amongst us) are too cowardly to accept cuts to their benefits. This, although the great majority of them will receive far more than they ever paid into the entitlement system. Thus, the wealthiest amongst us will be living off the tax dollars of the still working and less wealthy people. Go figure! I love our elders by the way. But lets not act as if they are not to blame for any of this. They were the voters during a time that America grew its government to Communist sizes and thus they deserve a large part of the blame.

There is only one segment of the government that will take the necessary steps needed to deal with the problem. And that segment is roughly 2/3 of 3/5 of 1/2 of 1 of the 3 branches of our federal government. Did you follow that? I am referring to the conservative and "tea" party side of the Republican Party. The tea party members of the Republican party only control the House of Representatives. This is 1/2 of the Legislative branch of our government. The Legislative branch is 1 of 3 branches of our federal government. And the Tea party/Conservatives make up probably just 66% of all Republicans who are true conservatives.

Thus there are 2 situations we have here:

1) On principal as a conservative Libertarian (somewhat in line with many tea party members) I am against this deal and any deal that as Senator Rand Paul says: "Does not balance the budget". To balance the budget would require massive cuts. We borrow about half of what our Federal government spends. I believe we need a non-violent revolution of government principled on Constitutional ideas. I'm glad that the compromise did not include tax raises. To raise taxes on people at this time is ignorant. You can read past blog entries to understand how taxes always end up being paid by consumers, most of which are not rich people. On principal I would vote against the plan despite this positive aspect of the deal. If I were in congress, I would vote against the plan. But I am glad that the deal got done. What you say? Well now for the 2 situation.

2) Our founding fathers set up a form of government that does not allow things to be done quickly. For good reason. It requires that a law be Constitutional (this of course has not stopped past laws from being passed but the courts are highly populated with anti-Constitutional Liberals). A bill has to be passed by both houses of Congress. Then has to be approved by the President. Elections only take place ever 2 years. And it takes 6 full years before each seat of congress has come up for election because Senators serve 6 year terms. Those with my principals again make up a very small part of that government. Therefore this deal might be the only thing that could have gotten done. So in conclusion:

Obey the rule of law and understand that just as it has taken 80 years, beginning with FDR mainly, to cause this problem, it will take years to reverse. In the 2012 elections, win the Presidency with someone like Rick Perry as President. Expand your control in the House and take the Senate by just enough seats this year. All these takeovers need to be done by conservative Republicans who will stand on good principal. Meaning not the same Republicans that were leading during the Bush Administration. If this takes place then serious reform can be accomplished.

Does America Make anything anymore?

2011-07-14T18:13:00.000-07:00

One of the worries in America is the idea that we can no longer feed ourselves, cloth ourselves, or make things for ourselves. This is typically the fear when people are debating that America is becoming a service economy and no longer a manufacturing economy that makes anything. Lets keep in mind that over a hundred years ago, most families individually fed themselves and clothed themselves when everyone had a farm and most everyone sewed their own clothes. But today we do not have anxiety over the fact that most people have never farmed much of anything and very few people have ever clothed themselves one outfit much less all their clothes. We would not complain that our lives are worse today than then! But yet when America as a whole shifts jobs overseas, we all the sudden fear that we are headed down a path to destruction. Aside from the fact that that in itself is ridiculous... even those who disagree might be surprised to find out that their facts are wrong to begin with:

America makes more "stuff" than anyone today! According to a U.N study (and we know the U.N hates us, so trust me if this article makes us look good you know its the truth) American manufacturing output in 2009 was 2.15 trillion dollars (in 2005 dollars) compared to China's 1.48 trillion dollars. Yes! America manufactured more than China, the place everyone fears is taking our jobs. In fact America accounted for 20 percent of the entire world's manufacturing output. That is just one percent below the 1990 amount of 21%! Yes your math is correct, in a 20 year period of time, America's manufacturing as a percentage of the world's manufacturing, only dropped one percent.

In 2009, we manufactured more than Japan, Germany, Britain, and Italy combined. And we keep increasing our manufacturing! You say what? How can this be from everything I have heard? American manufacturing today has more than doubled since 1970.

It is true that we have lost millions of American manufacturing jobs. But this is not because all those jobs are moving overseas. This is because we have become so much more productive! Technology today allows the American worker to produce far more than the American worker of decades ago. Many decades ago young people could dream about working in the factory as opposed to farming jobs which were dropping off due to this same increase in productivity levels in agriculture. Today young people can dream about becoming doctors, nurses, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, architects, engineers, or many other jobs due to technological improvements in manufacturing.

Many speak of how everything they buy is "made in China"! That is often true. This is because China specializes in producing toys, shoes, sporting equipment and other low-tech, labor-intensive jobs. These products do not require the high tech and sophisticated factories of America.

In fact a large amount of "stuff" is made in the United States. Of course this is not usually the cheap inexpensive items you find on the shelf of your local wal-mart or target. America specializes in making things like: planes, air-conditioners, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and more. These are not on your weekly shopping list. Nor is this "stuff" you pick up off the shelf and can turn over and read where it was made.

The fact is, the cheap items we buy on the shelf of our stores should and are made in cheap labor countries. America prospers when we free up labor to do the high tech jobs by allowing other nations do the low-tech jobs. Are some workers hurt for a time in America? Absolutely. The farmer had a tough time making changes years ago when many of them lost their jobs. So did the blacksmiths and buggy makers when the automobile replaced horse and buggy. But was America worse off? No! Today the fighter jet maker, mechanic, doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer, teacher, and more are replacing the factory worker. But as it was true a hundred years ago, we are better for it today!

*Much of this comes from author Jeff Jacoby

ignorance needed to pass an agenda

2011-07-06T17:22:00.000-07:00

Politicians, mostly Democrats these days push for policies (their agenda) by using talking points that are easily proven wrong with just a smidgen of evidence. Lets look at it...

Those who favor larger government control over our lives often try to discredit our founding fathers by misrepresenting some of their Constitutional ideas. One of the most often misrepresentations used is the three-fifths compromise. Rhetoric such as: "They only counted black people as 3/5 a person!" "How can we listen to these people when they considered my people (this is said by a Black American liberal) 3/5 a person?!"

Politicians are often pretty intelligent people. They know what the 3/5 compromise really was. But that means nothing to them when they are trying to push an agenda through. But with a public that is as undereducated as our public is, its easy to see why they choose to speak in talking points and not reality. Even some of my readers might not be able to defend this example. The three-fifths compromise counted slaves as 3/5 a person when counting for the House of Representatives and for the electoral college. IN other words, if slaves were counted as a whole person for these considerations, it would have made the southern slave states even stronger politically. This would have in effect hurt the African American at the time.

Tax cuts for the rich is another issue. What is rich? Some say its an income of $250,000 a year or more. But many small businesses that just get by file taxes under individual income. If their company has revenue of just over $250,000 they might be taxed at that top income bracket percentage. Thus to lower taxes for small businesses would require you to lower the tax rate on the highest income tax bracket. Politicians know this. But they public often does not.

These are also the people that hire individuals. So do corporations. The fact is, lowering these taxes often allows companies to expand and become larger. This in effect can actually increase the amount of taxes these rich people pay because of increased wealth and increased incentive to move operations back to America. This is seen throughout history where lowering these taxes has led to economic expansion and increased government revenue. Also corporations do not pay taxes only people do. Higher taxes on corporations means one of three things: higher prices for consumers, lower pay for workers, lower dividends for investors.

Lastly is Rent Control laws: Designed to keep the price of rent lower in low income areas actually has the opposite affect. I have explained the affects of this in other blog entries. You can read those to understand that. But the two most prominent cities with strong rent control laws are San Francisco and New York City. These two cities also have some of the highest rent prices despite these controls. Politicians know this but the public does not.

Our job: Become educated and vote out these politicians that no longer can take advantage of our ignorance.

Why tax cuts work for the country... and liberal governments

2011-06-24T17:57:00.000-07:00

Today one of the largest debates is taking place in our nation's history. How to correct our deficit and ultimately our national debt. (Deficit is the yearly debt that the United States government racks up, the national debt is all those years added up through the years).

Today there are two main arguments. One group is for major spending cuts(conservative Republicans, libertarians, those in the so called "tea party") the other group is for bringing in more revenue through higher taxation (liberals and most democrats). Those who are for bi-partisan negotioting will go for a little of both(this is probably what will come about). The sad fact is that this argument is stupid to have considering the argument has been going on for years(in fact at least since 1920) and there is irrefutable proof that both can be accomplished by cutting spending and you can also raise revenues by yes LOWERING TAX RATES.

Economist Thomas Sowell writes that most would think a liberal democrat once made this statement: ""It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered." In fact the man that made this statement was the Secretary of the Treasury under the conservative republican president Calvin Coolidge.

Andrew Mellon made this statement because he knew that at higher prices people buy and invest less. When taxes are high on something, capital will not fly towards those things that are being taxed so highly. Therefore one might consider lowering these rates which will lead to an increase capital investment and in fact an increase revenue from those taxes. Lets look at the facts to back up this claim:

In 1916 there were 206 people who reported making over one million dollars according to the IRS. Five years later under liberal democrat Woodrow Wilson, there were only 21 people reporting making that much money. Why? tax rates on the rich skyrocketed. But then Congress later passed the tax cuts that Andrew Mellon was asking for and by 1925, there were once again 207 people reporting an income of a million dollars or more. So what had happened during that time when all the sudden millionaires disappeared?

Those rich people had put their money towards tax-exempt securities like local and state bonds. Sowell goes on to say that Mellon argued for two things. To get rid of those tax-exempt securities and to also lower the tax rates. He succeeded in only the latter after a long debate, just as we are having again today. Yes they used the "tax cuts for the rich" argument even years ago. This is not a new phenomenon. Some more facts:

In 1924 the federal government collected $50 million dollars in capital gains taxes. In 1925 that amount reached over $100 million dollars. When taxes were lowered, it made more sense to invest money in the economy because you got to keep more of the money you made, than to invest it in the tax-exempt securities that do not lead to economic expansion. Expansion that eventually leads to these increases in tax revenues. And as for those "rich" people in the top income bracket, they paid 30% of all taxes in 1920 but paid 65% of all taxes by 1929 after those "tax cuts for the rich". The reality is, there were more rich people that came about paying taxes and the already existing rich were investing money into the economy that allowed for this and thus they too were now paying into the nation's tax revenues.

All this was then replayed again under JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 administrations. Some can bring about statistics that show a strong economy even with high taxes. But this proves nothing other than the economy can still grow to some extent even with high taxes. I will not argue with that. Its easy to use that argument when prosperity unforeseen does not exist. In other words, we cannot know whether at lower taxes the economy would have even been stronger during those "strong" periods.

What is easy to judge is economic theory and science that makes sense. People will invest more when they can keep more of their return on investment. That common sense knowledge in itself should be enough. But if not the before mentioned evidence provided for nearly a century should be more than enough evidence that tax cuts work.

Cut spending and lower taxes!!

a painful truth...that could lessen the long term pain

2011-06-14T18:17:00.000-07:00

No doubt it would be hard for a person such as Paris Hilton who is born into riches to have to give up that life for a life of struggle or responsibility. But this is the unfortunate thing that is going to have to take place nationwide to fix our coming financial collapse (as opposed to the financial meltdown we are currently facing). Individuals who are use to nice handouts will soon have to face the fact that those handouts are no longer feasible.

According to the most recent census, "around 80 percent of Americans 65 and older own their own homes compared to 43 percent under 35. Twenty-three million households, or 37 percent of all homeowners, own their homes free and clear, and most of these are seniors aged 65 and older. According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2007 "Survey of Consumer Finances," the median net worth of people 65 and over is $232,000, those under 35 years have a net worth of $12,000 and for those 35-44, it's $87,000." (Economist Walter Williams)

Naturally older people have accumulated more wealth than younger people. This is for good reason-they have had longer to do so. The question is why would our federal government's soon to be largest single expenditure program be a program that subsidizes of this wealthiest group of American's healthcare-Medicare.

Obviously not all senior citizens are rich but if the median net worth is 232,000 then half of senior citizens have at least that much. Currently those people's healthcare (medicare) is subsidized by taxpayers(yes some of it was their own taxes but someone living decades after retirement, receives far more money back than they ever paid into the program). Why not allow that senior citizen to make a deal with a financial institution(bank) to relinquish their home to the bank at the end of her life for a large lump sum of cash up front that will allow that senior citizen to live the rest of his/her/their life off the thousands of dollars he/she/they are worth. At death the bank comes into complete ownership of those belongings that were agreed upon. Anything she does not have to give up in order to get that lump sum of cash, will still be passed on to his/her/their heirs.

Currently heirs to these people greatly benefit. When Senior Citizens die their belongings go to their kids or benificiary. For years, taxpayers pay for much of their retirement(Social Security) and for their healthcare(Medicare). These people may not have the cash on them to pay for their own healthcare. But their accumulated wealth is plenty to pay for these services for the rest of their lives. With the above program our taxes could be lowered, and taxpayers would not subsidize the wealthiest amongst us. Some citizens would still need assistance. I would support a state by state approach to handle this. But for most Senior Citizens, they would have plenty enough to pay for these services.

Instead a tax payer supported program that is going broke and bankrupting our nation is used with no serious change in sight. Why? Probably because only 50% or less of young people vote while 70% of seniors vote. Since this distruction will not take place until these seniors and politicians are dead, why committ political suicide and consider fixing a serious destructive program with a system like the simple description above?

Tunica and beyond

2011-06-05T15:44:00.000-07:00

Friday afternoon shortly after lunch time, my and a friend left for Tunica. A trip that in the past has always resulted in success (financially) and in terms of entertainment and fun. This trip was however much different.

After arriving Friday I went to play poker for hours straight. For those who know me well, they know that I play a tight but aggressive poker style. However it does take me a few hours to become comfortable enough to truly be aggressive. Tight-aggressive is also the style that most poker pros (those who make a living off poker, obviously putting down the belief that it is a game of pure luck) use. This time however my luck was not in my favor. Playing for up to 5 hours and only getting around 15-20 playable hands. I struggled to get anything going. I profited a grand total of 20 dollars during that 5 hour period. Keep in mind this is a trip of 6 1/2 hours. Not worth it up to this point.

After playing, me and Justin left to go to a local gas station. When we returned to my Trailblazer the vehicle would not start. It is over 90 degrees and about 2AM local time. Tunica has no real business that is open at this time. The closes Wal-Mart is 45 minutes away. I had no idea what was wrong with the vehicle. We believed it was a battery issue. We were correct. Luckily for us there was a kind good hearted slender black Gentlemen that saved our lives. He tested his battery on my vehicle and confirmed it was in fact the battery. My truck started no problem. As long as it keeps running I could drive to Wal-Mart and get a new battery and install it at roughly 3:30 AM. But the car died before even pulling out. This man then offered to drive us 45 minutes to the nearest Wal-Mart to buy a battery! I know of very few people who would have been willing to do this.

Roughly 2 hours later we returned to the gas station at around 4:30. New battery worked, we drove back to the Goldstrike Casino/Hotel and slept that night. I got a wonderful 4 hours of good sleep. The next morning we awoke and drove around to banks to go to the ATM. Justin's card was not working despite having plenty of money in his checking account. While out we stopped at one last gas station to try that ATM machine. As we are getting out of my car I see first hand the hardest T-Bone collision I have ever seen! A small white car hit an SUV causing it to roll over in the middle of the street! I thought for sure this was an injury resulting in serious injury. To the contrary the safety of those big gas using American SUV's that destroy the environment (according to some odd people) once again saved two people's lives. This type of accident would usually do me little harm but functioning on 4 hours of sleep over the past 30 was not the best thing for my soul.

We drove back to the Casino where we had little money. I knew Justin of course was good for it so I got money out of the ATM instead for us to use. I continued to play cards for another 4-5 hours. What was the result? More terrible cards! Finally on one of my last 6 hands I got pocket JJ and ended up rivering quad JJ's. This put me up 90 dollars for a grand total profit of $110 over about 10 hours of playing poker. In the past I had averaged winning about $700 in each of the past trips.

This profit paid for half of my battery trouble as we did pay the man for his great help to us. There were other misfortunes that are not to be posted publicly. But last night driving home on 4 hours of sleep over the past 42 was not easy. I bought coffee that poured out onto Justin, blistering his butt. Finally returned home this morning around 3:30 local time.

Tunica is a place of surprises. I have always had pleasant surprises. This trip did not have many. But the most pleasant surprise I have ever had from a stranger came from a slender, older, black gentleman in the middle of the night who blessed our hearts by driving us 45 min two ways to get a battery that he then installed for us. this man was truly a blessing on a trip that was not much of a blessing in any other fashion. thank you sir!!!

Government's power

2011-06-01T18:29:00.000-07:00

Is it more dangerous to do something stupid or is it more dangerous to have a government which restricts your right to do that stupid thing? I believe the second is far more dangerous.

I have listed in many blog entries where government involvement in our lives based on good intentions has led to dire consequences. Government is primarily responsible for unemployment amongst individuals, especially young people, the housing meltdown and current economic turmoil, and even the Great Depression. It is responsible for so much more but I digress. Because of these historical facts, the latter is far more dangerous in my humble opinion.

I believe it to be stupid to not buckle your seat belt while driving a car. I believe almost all studies show that the chances of someone surviving a wreck with their seat belt on is is far greater than it not being on. But as a libertarian I also defend to the utmost the right for stupid people to choose not to wear their seat belts while driving their own cars. Its their body and lives.

Drive a motorcycle on the highway without a helmet? That is more stupid than not buckling up. But it is even more ridiculous and stupid for the government to force an individual to wear a helmet to protect his/her own head and health. What power delegated from the constitution gives the government that kind of power?

I believe smoking is harmful to a person's health. but to charge an excess "sin" tax on cigarettes and alcohol is more harmful because it adds to the growing power of government. The government has no right to infringe upon my desire to put tobacco in my own body. The government does not own my body. This is also why I support the legalization of Marijuana.

Government has gone even further. They do not allow restaurants that are owned by individuals to allow people to smoke in those establishments. This is insane in that the owner of his/her own business should have the right to allow any activity as long as it does not harm other individuals private property by force. In other words if I am allowed to choose not to eat at the establishment because the owner allows smoking, they should be allowed to go elsewhere and the owner should be allowed to function as he/she pleases.

The government also wants to restrict the amount of Salt (Sodium) restaurants put in their food. The fact that the government has to control our diets is now becoming a huge issue. I should be able to eat where and what I want without the government restricting my right to do so. If a store wants to add salt to their food to make it taste better, I have the right to go elsewhere if I believe it to be harmful. That is what the market is for.

Many of you who are my "conservative" friends might argue that these laws "protect" individuals and are not truly that harmful. But that is exactly the problem. These simple measures lead to more harmful measures. An economist I read made the perfect example: It can start out simple: Less sodium in our foods bought from businesses. Then parents who like turkey with more sodium will buy more sodium. As with cigarettes, salt containers will have to have warning signs put on them. Then if that does not work there will be a "Sin" tax put on the purchase of salt. Then parents who want to adopt children will have to pass a health screenings that does blood work to make sure you do not use too much salt and break the law. On and on we go until one day we say "how did we get here?

What if a vegetarian gets elected and says no more meat to be served in grocery stores or restaurants? What then my conservative friends? They will argue that it is harmful to your body as well as these animals. Should government have the power to restrict that?

Stupidity is a choice and should be allowed. Not allowing that choice it is the height of stupidity! Not to mention unconstitutional

The Greatest Generation

2011-05-25T07:45:00.000-07:00

Many refer to today's seniors as those who are of "The Greatest Generation". This statement is true in many respects. This group grew up post WWII, were some of the most patriotic of past Americans, and defended America while defeating Communism during the Cold Wars. These Americans grew up through often tough times and still prospered and stood strong. From my perspective they also have been around for some of the largest growth of government in U.S. History so I'm bias against calling them this but I digress. This generation might now have to stand strong and truly earn that title in the upcoming elections. Make no mistake about it, true budget changes might not come until after this next election.

Today our nation is facing some of the toughest questions in our nation's young history. European countries (ie: Greece), facing financial meltdowns are making major changes. Some are eliminating lots of government(responsible for these meltdowns) in their lives. But while these same financial crisis's are now being discussed here in America, some recent polls show that most might be against major reform to the Medicare and Social Security Systems in America. Furthermore, important states that are strongholds for conservatives, such as Florida, indicate that they are against major change. Other districts that include large numbers of Senior Citizens are against major change as we have seen in certain areas of New York. These are Seniors that most often vote for Republicans to begin with. But these new young Republican stars in congress that are proposing major changes to Medicare and Social Security might not get support from these staunch Republicans.

This blog might sound pro-Republican(in that I support some of these plans proposed by these Republicans) but keep in mind Republicans are partially to blame for the current crisis. My worry is that this "Greatest Generation" might prove to be no different from other generations. They might prove to have happened to grow up during a tough time in American history when many great things came about. They might be termed the "Greatest" due to circumstances they had no control over not because they did something special. We will soon find out.

Given that most young people who will be most hurt by these programs that will cause massive financial hardship in the future do not vote, and those who do often look to Hollywood, Comedy Central, MTV, and Musical stars for their voting expertise, we can not count on young people to turn out and show support for these plans to overhaul these failing programs. I do not blame Seniors for not wanting change, they benefit big time from my and others who pay for their healthcare and retirement. But if they want to truly be the "Greatest Generation" then we need them one more time to be great Americans and think with their brains and not with their hearts and desires. If that does not happen (and I am not optimistic that it will), then we need young American Libertarians and true conservatives (to support candidates who are willing to do the hard thing that will not win support from the large voting segment of the population (elderly).

People like Tim Pawlenty who have called for an end to subsidies in Iowa to corn farmers and a rise in age for social security benefits while in Florida need our support. This was courageous in that these are two issues that he is correct on all accounts but very much controversial to their respective states for the reason that Iowa is full of farmers, and Florida is full of Seniors. I'm not pledging my support... but if he stands by those issues... I might have to back him come November 2012

the mindset of today's athletes

2011-05-16T15:38:00.000-07:00

To step aside from economics today, I want to dive into an issue that has been bothering me for sometime now. The mindset of many high school athletes today.

It bothers me, it eats at my insides, when I hear constant criticism of another team during competition. The baseball player comes off the field and says something along the lines of "his curve ball does not break", "he does not throw that hard at all", "he's got nothing!" And that after popping out, grounding out, or even striking out.

Earlier this year: "the kid from Sequoyah you talked about, he was really not that good, I was not that impressed." "He did not really throw that hard." "I felt like you talked him up too much". I was thinking oh my so what was the score? "8-0". Well I suppose if you put up 8 runs against him, maybe he had a bad day or is not as good as I thought. Then find out "no... we lost 8-0!" What? Yes after getting shut out by a pitcher players have the audacity to act as if he was nothing after being embarrassed by him and the team. Oh, and that kid is wanted by Walters State, one of the top 5 teams in the nation in JUCO D1.

I go to Sequoyah last week and run into a couple former players. One of which constantly talked down about the players of the other team. One of which is really good.

I just don't understand why most athletes today, when losing, try to make them feel better about themselves by talking the others down. I don't know that they do so on purpose. I just know that it bothers me. When I played Anderson County had two really good pitchers. Loudon had a couple really good players. And there was Kingston, a team with a kid that got on people's nerves. Very cocky player, a guy that few really liked that much from the outside (no one really knew him that well). Yet each of those players were bragged on by us. They all could play. We knew it. When they struck us out or popped us up, the phrases used were: "his fastball is not overpowering but it moves a lot so get your hands thru". "His curve ball is not 12-6 but it does break pretty good". "He got me on the high fastball when you get behind he is going to try and throw it past you". At worst: "Its not as hard as it looks from here, but get in the back of the box, its still coming pretty fast."

This is just how we talked. Especially after getting out (which often happened to me). We had respect for the other team and the players. I don't know that these players actually feel that their opponents are not that good. I wonder if they are just embarrased, jealous, or so insecure with themselves that they have to bring others down to make them feel better about themselves.

Do not get me wrong, I am critical of people. I have high standards and often put other people down(although usually in a jokingly manner). But the last 2-5 sporting events I have been to have involved in each contest statements like that. And most often from the team that loses.

I don't know... its just something that bothers me about the mindset of many of our athletes today.

Beware of comparisons

2011-04-27T16:26:00.000-07:00

A friendly conversation with a friend of mine ended with me noticing a problem with so much information we get today. Economics is about efficiently allocating scare resources(all resources are scare) which have alternative uses. Meaning lets get what we need where me MOST need it as quickly and as cheaply as we can....

However understand that efficiency is different in different places. Let me explain by explain: My friend was arguing for America to use more cheap uses of power such as solar and wind. He cited that in Europe they have a couple places where wind is used to power large portions of cities. I have not looked up to concur this is the situation but even if it is, it can have zero relevance to our situation here in America.

Just as different parts of our country are powered differently (water in Vegas, Coal in the South, Oil in the NE) so is the rest of the world based on different resources. Europe can claim that Americans are inefficient at agriculture because they in Europe produce more food per acre than we do in America. But we can argue that our farmers produce more per farmer than they do in Europe. Each continent is both efficient in different ways. Europe has less land available for use and thus it is more efficient to spend more time on each acre getting all that you can out of the available land. WHile in America it makes since for the farmer to fly by rocks and not worry as much about weeds since we have so much land that can be used. Thus the efficiencies are far different.

Third world countries get more work done with a given amount of capital because they use the capital more than we do in America. But that is because in a rich nation like America we have more capital to use and our labor is far more expensive. Let me explain. In America it makes sense for a truck driver to drive his trailor to a location and let it sit until morning to be unloaded by workers who arrive for their "morining" shift. He can attach his truck to another trailor and continue on. In a third world country they would have workers waiting for trucks to arrive and immediately unload them. Why the difference? America has more access to capital than third-world countries and third-world countries have cheaper labor costs as compared to America. So while the trailor sits idle till morning in America, poor nations have to get in unloaded quickly to then be used very soon after.

The point it that different nations have different situations. It makes sense that Europe would have more public transportation and use less oil and gasoline than in America because they have far less land but have 100,000,000 more people than America does. So the population is more dense and thus they can spread out the costs to far more people when they ride public transportation. We in America have to drive more because there are not enough people in Knoxville and Crossville to have a train of some sort connecting the two cities. Thus we drive. Furthermore our roads and highways, while built really well are high speed roads and have lots of hills. IE: drive from Crossville to Knoxville. If I'm making that trip I want to be in a SUV for protection purposes not some environmentally friendly 50 miles to the gallon car that many in Europe can use. And lastly if we do not have the English Channel to generate wind but have tons of coal, it makes sense for us to use coal and let europeans use more wind energy than us. Our efficiencies are based on available resources.

Our efficiencies are different based on our circumstances and resources. So when you hear professors, teachers, media, politicians, or even parents talk about "well in Europe they do this and its good why are we behind?" Its often that we are not behind... its that those individuals are behind on their understanding of economics and geography differences.

Why I'm a libertarian

2011-04-22T17:58:00.000-07:00

It is very easy for me to be a libertarian but was very hard for me to become one. There are a wide range of Liberals and Conservatives. There are people that will refer to themselves as conservative because their Baptists. And therefore they are against Gay Marriage and Abortion. Very few other issues matter. Now they will come out and protest when people try to take "under God" out of our pledge. They will come out when bills to allow more evolution to be taught are being considered. There are also many intelligent conservatives that follow issues and are wise.

There is also a wide range of liberals. Some liberals are liberals because they are anti-Christian and want to be against anything Christian Conservatives are for. They believe in equal rights for all people and make up the fact that these rights exist in our Constitution although no rights are given to us in our Constitution. Some are liberals because they, in a simplistic way support helping the poor. So if someone says "program to help poor people" they go running and support it regardless of the unintended consequences. Then there are some educated liberals that have studied and have come to the conclusion that capitalism helps the rich but does not help the poor. They truly want a just society and they feel that America is not a superior nation and we have flaws and government needs to fix those flaws.

But there are very few if any self-proclaimed libertarians that are not very smart and educated on the ideas. This is because it is hard to become a libertarian. It requires a different way to look at the world and an understanding that there are costs and benefits and the policy that needs to be taken is the best when taking into consideration both costs and benefits. This is far more complex way of thinking but one that never contradicts itself. Thus it is hard to become a libertarian but not hard remaining one. One of these new ways of viewing issues is through "opportunity costs".

A common simple and quite frankly normal human being would not object to spending 20 Billion dollars on Aids research. And I understand this. I would never be against this myself... until I became a libertarian. When I wised up I realized I was wrong. A libertarian knows that there are costs and benefits to any and everything. Let me explain what I mean:

I am against spending 20 Billion dollars on Aids research because that is 20 billion dollars that could be spent in a more valuable area such as CANCER research. Now before mentioning that many would have called me heartless because I just said I was against Aids research. But when you understanding that the opportunity costs of something is whatever you give up in order to pursue something then you understand that 20 billion spent there is 20 billion not spent researching something that affects far more people.

This is why I am against governments running programs. Not because I believe government is evil. But a free market allocates resources (including money) to the most valuable uses. Since there is more money to be made in curing or improving cancer conditions, more and most money will be spent on Cancer research if left to the free market. This guarantees the most people's lives to benefited.

And that principal is why I have become a libertarian.

Just a little mental relief

2011-04-19T16:25:00.000-07:00

Today it is common to hear individuals complain about gas prices. And who blames them? Gas prices are high. For the record one of the main things holding back the decline of gas prices is the regulation on drilling for oil. With demand rising around the world, supply needs to also rise and even at a slight quicker rate so that speculators are not as worried about international conflicts that could hurt the supply of gas.

But this column is not about lowering gas prices but more so about trying to bring some calmness of mind. I hope that it is some relief to know that gas prices rising is mostly due to a rise in demand. Profit margins are not much higher if any higher for oil companies than they are for other areas of commerce. A rise in demand world wide can be most impactful on gas prices. Our allowing free trade with foreign countries such as China and India has allowed us to save lots of money when buying their products. If these products were made in America they would cost far more and thus we would have less money to spend in other ares of our lives.

This saving of money has not only benefited us but it has also benefited India and China in their ever growing economies. Due to that, those two countries have continued to add to their infrastructure and technology. This has allowed hundreds of millions of people to begin driving. This has led to a large increase in the demand for oil around the country and thus the higher prices.

So just remember the lower prices we pay for foreign goods has allowed us to save money that we can then spend on gas. I know this might be of little comfort to most of you. But that is only because we have never lived in a society that does not allow free trade. We have no idea what the prices of goods would be if we could only buy goods made in America. But rest assure, those prices would be far higher than the higher gas prices we are paying now.

Tenure

2011-04-03T16:04:00.000-07:00

My apologies... this blog is not allowing me to split the post up into paragraphs for some reason!! School Principals do not have tenure because the governing bodies of our education system, and common sense individuals, deem our schools to be too important to be left in the hands of an individual who has no fear of losing their job due to poor performance. Why do we not view the individual classroom the same way??? Most people view issues from idealistic viewpoints and not from economic perspectives. Most think of economics as money and businesses. But in reality economics is about decisions that are made based upon cost/benefit analysis. I had a discussion with a lovely new friend of mine recently about tenure laws. We agreed nearly on every point. But how I come to my conclusions might have been slightly different from her ways of coming to an opinion. I view issues from an economics perspective. If you were to tell me that a teacher who has no fear of losing their job will work as hard as a teacher who does fear losing their job than you are telling me that teachers are the most holy individuals in society and quite frankly are the most holy individuals ever. Let me explain: If you told a drug company that they would stay in business and receive the same money whether they created new helpful drugs for our medical care or not do you think that drug company would be motivated to work as hard? Most would say NO. Its the desire for profit and competition of the free market that motivates these companies to create new things for us. These companies create medicines that improve, sustain, and most importantly save lives. But the drug company does not think of it from that perspective but from the perspective of "lets make a lot of money!" The motivation behind drug companies are profits and the need to survive in the marketplace. This is why America still creates the most new drugs. We still have a profit motive in our healthcare system. Why do we have a holier than thou view of teachers in that we believe they ALL will perform their job because they want to do great things and are motivated to help people. Its proof in cities that have "rubber rooms" to house teachers who are harmful to the education experience that this is not the case. Many teachers, protected by tenure laws have become so bad that administrations have placed them in these separate buildings performing paper work and have hired new teachers to replace them because that is cheaper than fighting the unions in court over firing a bad teacher. How pathetic! Would most teachers still work just as hard if they knew they would have a job whether they did a supered job or not? For some reason union leaders say yes. And yet there is ample proof that is not the case in many cities with the before mentioned problems. Want another example?: As a principal what teachers are hardest to find. If you said math and science go to the front of the room you are correct. Do you know why? Its because they are the hardest subjects to get a degree in. But wait... if teachers are all motivated to help students, would they not want to help them in two of the most important and under staffed fields? The answer is NO. Since pay is no more for those tougher fields, more teachers have chosen to pursue the easier subjects to earn a degree in. You see many things motivate teachers. I believe we have teachers that are great and would be great regardless. But there are many out there who are not like that. Tenure will only save a very few good teachers who might not get to keep their jobs because they have personality complications with the administration. And that sucks when good teachers are let go due to this. But the amount of good teachers let go due to that is far exceeded by the number of teachers who no longer work as hard when they are not motivated to survive as the private sector is. thus since the cons outweigh the pros... I choose to be against tenure and favor its replacement with another benefits for teachers: Merit pay being one. Pay your best teachers more. Pay the teachers of the harder subjects more so there will be no shortage of some teachers and a surplus of others. In the end these issues are not to be viewed from a teachers perspective but from the students perspective because that is what education is suppose to be about anyways. And I never hear those in favor of tenure talk about the ramifications upon students from those laws. And nor can I blame them. Unions are suppose to be about their clients. But the education of our children should never be viewed from the perspective of the union but of the students involved. P.S. Refer to some of my older education blogs about the overall education system

The Economic Principal that has molded most of my beliefs

2011-03-12T17:07:00.000-08:00

For you who follow my blog or come by and read it from time to time, I want to shed some light on just one principal that has so molded my beliefs when it comes to economic policies and government involvement in our lives. This is one of the most basic principals of economics but so few understand. The idea is based on there always being the kind of cost that so few people think about: OPPORTUNITY COSTS

Opportunity Costs is that which is given up in order to pursue something else. These costs involve the time you could have spent doing something else and that in which you could have spent your money on but can't due to spending it somewhere else. In other words the true cost of watching TV for 2 hours is what you could have spent those two hours on. The cost of spending 10 dollars on anything is not really the 10 dollars. Money is only a median of exchange. The true cost is anything else you could have done with that 10 dollars.

I was watching briefly the Tennessee Girls State basketball championship today. I'm excited about Stone Memorial boys basketball team being in the State next week along with head coach Mike Buck and assistant coach Neil Capps. So I was somewhat in the state tournament mood. But as funny as it is I was finding it hard to keep the tv on because it was showing on PBS. I totally disagree with the idea of PBS. As a libertarian, I am against state ran telivision. Aside from the Constitutional reasons are the Opportunity Costs reasons. Many will talk about the positives of PBS and how it can help educate some children and is good programming in a world with such filth on telivision today. But that is only half of economics.

Economics is about the BENEFITS but also about comparing that with the COSTS. Most will say that it is worth tens of millions of dollars to have that broadcast channel. They base this on the benefits and the fact that in a government with a 2 trillion dollar budget what is a few ten or hundred millions of dollars each year. Well the cost is anything else that money could have been spent on. That money could have been spent on better armor for our troops, better weapons for our police, better training for police and fire fighters. It could have been spent on fixing roads and making them safer for drivers. All things that government is suppose to do according to the constitution but also because there is not true market (supply/demand) for public goods as such.

PBS is fine and has some good things. But the question is not whether its good. The question is whether that is the best place for government to spend tax payers money? And I hope the paragraph above makes you rethink that. Money spent on Aids research is money that could have been spent on Cancer research. It is not that I have no sympathy for Aids victims, but quicker cures and better treatments for cancer would do far more good than the same for the disease of Aids. Often I sound heartless but I feel that since I agree with doing the greater good for the greater number of people, that my ideas have the most compassion.

One last example of opportunity costs. Years ago due to an incident at an airport in which an airplane hit another object on the runway, a small infant child was killed in the incident. To fix the problem, many were calling for the simple fix: Require a child proof seat on an airplane as you do in a car. The famous slogan: "If we buckle our kids at 55 mph, why not at 550 mph?" it makes a lot of sense. If those seats were required that child would be living today most likely. But that is not economics, that is only half of economics. The cost is what? Well with that law, the parent is now required to purchase another seat to put her child in, instead of holding onto his/her child. At this cost, many families might choose to drive to their destination instead of fly. Flying is much safer than driving statistically speaking! Thus this laws true cost: Far more deaths by driving than would have been saved flying!

When I decide my opinion on issues... I always think about OPPORTUNITY COSTS... I hope you start doing the same

Nothing is more dangerous than good intentions

2011-02-18T18:47:00.000-08:00

The title might sound odd considering there is nothing that people like more than someone who has a good heart and intends to do good for others and society as a whole. The dangerous part is that good intentions and a good heart are hard to argue with and thus can be dangerous when the heart is WRONG! Think with your head not your heart Washington D.C.! See that sounds bad because we always love the heart but when it comes to government, use your head! Parents... use your heart!

My students are learning about Price Control laws in school right now. One of my favorite subjects to talk about is when good intentions have bad consequences. No doubt everyone out there knows the most basic principal in economics: We buy more at lower prices and buy less at higher prices. The other half of that principal is not common sense but obvious too: Producers produce more when they can get a higher price and produce less when their goods sell for lower prices. Pretty simply huh?

San Francisco and NYC are known for their gracious Rent Control laws. They love to help out the poor people by not allowing those nasty landlords keep raising their rent! Only problem is that homelessness is a huge problem in NYC and was in San Francisco until most poor people left that city making it now one of the most wealthy cities in America. Why did this happen? Government wanted to help people my not allowing rent prices to rise so high. So prices were kept low! Now people who had the money began renting bigger apartments than they needed, and the landlords stopped building or taking care of existing apartments because they as the basic principal says: produce less at lower prices. Now the poor people have a hard time finding a place to rent and they end up homeless! Such a great law huh? Its true recently a study showed that about 175,000 single adults in NYC rent apartments... that have 4 bedrooms!! Why? because their located in rent controlled areas and are cheaper. This takes up all the room for larger families that need housing!

Now, guess what Minimum Wage laws do: Well they keep the price for workers high (currently $7.25/hr) Well remember what the most basic principal of economics is: People buy less at higher prices. And producers become consumers when it comes to hiring workers. So they hire fewer workers at the higher price and thus what is created? If you said a higher UNEMPLOYMENT RATE go to the front of the class your right! Thus in countries with high worker protection laws and high minimum wage laws, there are also lots of jobless benefits programs to help them when they lose their jobs because its common to have lots of unemployed workers where these laws exist. This hurts teenagers more than anyone. Who often in Germany (where they have more of these laws than nearly any other place) have a normal unemployment rate of around 25%! Terrible! Yet those government officials were well intended! So I sound like a monster arguing against Tenure laws, benefit programs, minimum wages for hard workers, and rent control to help poor people. But in reality I'm just choosing to think with my head not my heart... and in the end that is actually more compassionate whether it sounds like it or not!

Gender Income Inequalities Part 3

2011-01-30T15:45:00.000-08:00

Regular and Irregular Work

Many jobs are 8-4 or 9-5 hours jobs but many require hours whenever and wherever they happen to be required. When a multimillion-dollar lawsuit is in progress or a death penalty case is being appealed, the attorneys cannot quit work in the afternoon after their 8 hour shift. Nights and weekends might also be required.

In general it does not matter if the attorney is male of female but in practice women more often carry the burden of domestic responsibilities for children and the care of the home and thus these kinds of jobs are less attractive to women. Due to this, whole professions might not always be put off-limits but range of work within that profession can be restricted. Thus more often women attorneys are civil service attorneys with regular hours then working for a leading high-pressure law firm where the work week might average 60-70 hours and those hours are to be worked at unpredictable times. These law firms might also have to fly these attorneys to distant places on short notice.

Economist Thomas Sowell says that in principle this is the same problem for men and women. But in practice, a mother is more likely to stay home with children while the father is tied up at the office or flying off to someplace to deal with legal emergencies. Moreover, since men are never pregnant, women are disadvantaged in such work by the physical limitations of pregnancy. A Harvard Business Review surveyed people whose earnings were int he top 6 percent and it showed that 62% worked more than 50 hours a week and 35% worked more than 60 hours a week. Among those with "extreme" jobs-meaning high in hours and stress, lean than 20% were women. Among those people who did hold these jobs, women were only half as likely to say they wanted to still be working like this five years later.

The Economist magazine observed recently: "The main reason why women still get paid less on average then men is not they they are paid less for the same jobs but they they tend to not climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations, such as nursing and teaching."

Other studies show that jobs where women with college degrees earn at least as much as men are computer engineers, petroleum engineer, and a variety of other engineering occupations, as well as journalist, portfolio manager and medical technologist. But these jobs have fewer women than men in them. So the main reason that women are paid less than men is not that they are paid less to do the same job, but that "they are distributed differently among jobs and have fewer hours and less continuity in the labor force."

Among college-educated, never married individuals with no children who worked full-time and were from 40-64 years old, that is beyond usual child bearing years, men averaged $40,000 a year in income while women earned $47,000. Even in the top-level universities like Harvard and Yale, women have not worked full-time, or worked at all, to the same extent as male graduates. Among Yale alumni in their forties, 56% of women still worked while 90% of men did according to the New York Times. Women are also more likely to work part-time than men. This restricts the range of industries and occupations available that they can work in. Half of all women who work part-time do so in only ten industries out of 236 industries surveyed.

Domestic Responsibilities

Given the importance of being able to support having children, it should not be surprising that married men with children have usually earned the highest income of all, since higher earning are more imperative for fathers with a family to support. Marriage has the exact opposite affect on women since their domestic responsibilities are different. Women who have never married have higher average incomes than women who have, and women with no children have higher average incomes than women with children. In nations where most women get married, this can have obvious overall affects. Now that marriage rates are declining, one could see why women's incomes are gaining ground on men's income.

Gender Income Inequalities Part 2

2011-01-26T16:15:00.000-08:00

Part 1 of this blog entry covered some of the historical aspects of gender income. Now lets look at the economic implications of gender income differences. To truly see if employer discrimination takes place you would have to compare men and women who had truly comparable educations, skills, experience, continuity of employment, full-time or part-time work, what occupations they choose, whether they are more or less likely to want promotions, whether they want to travel or work in different environments, among other variables. This is hard to do. Besides there are very few men and women who all have these same variables. Let us examine a few of these variables now.

Occupational Differences

Although physical strength is no longer the most important quality to have for most jobs as it use to be when most people worked in agriculture, heavy industry, or mining, there are still particular industries today where considerable physical strength remains a requirement. Some of these fields requiring more strength are fields with higher pay than the national average. This would thus lead men to have higher average incomes then women. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women have been 74 percent of what the Bureau classifies as "clerical and kindred workers". But they have been less than 5 percent of "transport equipment operatives." In other words, women are are more likely to sit behind a desk than to steer an eighteen-wheel truck. Women are less than 4 percent of workers in "construction, extraction, and maintenance." They are less than 2 percent of roofers or masons and less than one percent of mechanics and technicians who service heavy vehicles and mobile equipment. These have obvious economic implications, since miners earn nearly double the income of office clerks when both work full-time and year-round. There is still a premium paid for workers doing heavy physical work as well as hazardous work. While men are 54 percent of the labor force, they are 92 percent of job-related deaths. This is due to working the more dangerous jobs which of course pay more.

Continuity of Employment

Women have also made career choices based on the likelihood they would at some point or other become mothers. This usually means a time of withdrawal from the full-time work outside the home, the cost of this factors in occupational choices. Where a occupation is unionized and withdraw means a loss of seniority, this hurts their prospects of being promoted and being retained during times of lay-offs.

This also hurts women's work experience especially when they do not re-enter the workforce until the child reaches a certain age. These interruptions are less common among men of course. The effect of this loss time depends on the occupation. Due to this, promotions are rare but not just those who have lost work time but to those who are likely to lose work time in the future. A promotion to a high level senior position that requires lots of time will be less likely to be given to a woman since there is a good chance for a future interruption of work.

Occupation skills change over time today as well. Rapidly changing computer technology means that computer engineers and programmers are constantly upgrading their skills to keep up with advances in their field. Tax accountants also have to keep up with changes in tax laws, and attorneys must keep up with changes in laws in general. To drop out of these fields and then return in a few years after children have grown up may mean they are behind in the developments in these occupations. Thus women consider these issues when choosing a career. It has been estimated that physicist loses half the value of their knowledge in four years while a professor of English would take more than a quarter of a century to lose half the value of the knowledge in that field. Thus it is not surprising that women work in fields with lower rates of these losses such as teachers and librarians rather than computer engineers or tax accountants. Even when the proportion of women receiving Ph.D.s rose dramatically from the 1970s on, male-female differences in the fields of specialization remained large. As of 2005, women received more than 60 percent of the doctorates in education but less than 20 percent of doctorates in engineering, a field that pays far more.

More in part 3

Gender Income Inequalities Part 1

2011-01-15T14:27:00.000-08:00

I recently had a short text conversation about gender studies/income differences with a new good fun friend of mine. For the record I rarely have those conversations through text messaging. The discussion went away from gender studies and specifically about the discrimination of women in our society primarily through income differences and occupations and promotions. And the discrimination is apparent and obvious due to the differences in income between men and women. Well this is the thought of most Americans but in reality and I will attempt to show you in the following two posts, discrimination plays a small if any true significant affect on income differences amongst men and women. This will not be a typical blog entry. It will be longer than usual even for my blog posts. In Part 1: I will look at the history of these differences and the correlations that are apparent.

There is not doubt and no argument against the fact that in most societies throughout history, women have earned lower incomes than men. But this has caused many fallacies to form. For most people, the prevailing opinion is that discrimination is the main factor in these differences. This is mostly due to the media, political arena, the intelligentsia(colleges and teachers/professors), and finally the courts of law even. But Thomas Sowell says that this "explanation cannot withstand the scrutiny of history and of economics."

There is no question that in almost all societies, women and men have been treated differently from birth on. In some societies, girls have not been educated as often as boys or to the extent of boys. This undoubtedly has led to women being less qualified to hold jobs requiring education. Societies that do this throw away much of the economic and other potentials of half their populations. But this is not to say that employers discriminate when hiring workers given this fact. Under this scenario, women and men would end up with different levels of knowledge, skills, and work experience. These times have changed though and fewer societies have these same restrictions against women. But this is not going to change employment and income differences over night. Even in the twenty-first century, "two-thirds of the world's illiterate adults are women" according to The Economist magazine.

Years ago when most work was done on the farm, mines, or in regards to shipping, physical strength was a necessity to be a truly productive worker. We can blame God that he made men stronger then women in general but discrimination is definitely not the reason that more men had jobs in this era. Over time human muscle has been replaced by machine power and skill development and education has become more important than pure physical power. This has lessened the gap between the productivity levels of men compared to women. At the time when physical strength was a priority, many desperately poor people in China, who were living on the edge of starvation, would kill their infant girls due to the fact that their physical development would not be enough to produce enough food to sustain themselves and thus without a surplus of food these families often killed their newborns who were girls. This was not always an attempt to control population growth but an economic concern in China.

With this change in productivity characteristics, the age of which people reached their peak earnings began to rise as skill development and experience were now a prime for productivity. This lowed the differences in male-female comparisons. But today the top factor affecting the still sizable gap between men and women incomes is real simple: Child bearing. Again we can blame God for this. Mothers as a group fall behind men in income as domestic responsibilities reduce the ability of women with babies and small children to work continuously at full-time in the workforce. This means they lose two things: skill development and experience. Those are the two most important factors in productivity of an individual. Many of these changes have ran in correlation to the 1960's feminist movement amongst other movements. Many contribute the lessening income gap to the more "enlightened" views of women by society. Thus they want more government policies and laws passed to continue this trend. But history contradicts this theory.

History shows us that employer discrimination and the career paths of women bore very little resemblance. The fact is that the proportion of women in the professions and other high level positions was greater during the first decades of the twentieth century than in the middle of the twentieth century- and all of this was before either anti-discrimination laws or the rise of the feminist movement. The proportion of women among the people listed in Who's Who In America in 1902 was more than double the proportion in 1958. The trend of women as a percentage of academic was up from 1910 to 1930 and down after that, with a possible upward trend in recent years, according to the same 1964 study. Other facts back this up like more women received doctoral degrees in 1921 and 1932 but this was back down again in the late 1950's and early 1960's. These same trends existed in biological sciences, economic degrees, humanities, chemistry, and law. Even employment in colleges amongst women was down in 1961 as compared to the 1930's. This was even seen in women's colleges, run by women such as Smith, Wellesley, Vassar, and Bryn Mawr. There is no way this was due to discrimination.

Why did these changes take place? Really simple in fact. Women's marriage and child-bearing patterns changed during those same times. During the early decades, the median age that women were first married was higher than at the mid-century. Most women who staffed women's colleges during the early era were not married at all. As the median age of marriage began to decline, the representation of women in high-level occupations and recipients of postgraduate degrees also declined. This decline in the median age of marriage ended in 1956 and began to rise again. This is why more recent data shows the gaps again closing between men and women. The birth rate also began to decline from 1957 on, and by 1966, it was as low as it have been back in 1933. The 1970's saw women's share of doctoral degrees again rise. Remember also the role that the "baby-boom" would have played shortly after WWII.

Women's rise in higher-level occupations in the second half of the twentieth century continued to follow the rise in their age of marriage which rose sharply and finished the century much higher than it was at the beginning. The birth rate also fell sharply and was much lower at the end of the century than even the beginning. Women rose to record high levels in higher education and higher occupations. Women's percentage of postgraduate degrees in general, master's degrees in business and law degrees, medical degrees, and Ph.D.s all skyrocketed from the 1970's on according to Economist Thomas Sowell.

There was also a narrowing of the labor force participation gap as well. In 1950, 94% of men but only 33% of women were in the workforce. The gap of of 61% points narrowed to 45 by 1970. At the end of the century the gap was only 12 points as 86 percent of men and 74 percent of women were in the labor forces. Almost as important, women also entered occupations where men were previously predominant, especially those fields requiring a college degree. The continuity of women's employment also increased after 1970, although the gap between the continuity of men's and women's employment did not disappear and women continued to work part-time more so than men.

These positive changes in the second half of the twentieth century all follow in line with the changes of women's age of marriage and child-bearing. Male-female differences in income did not disappear completely. These differences have more to do with career choices than they do discrimination. That is more economics and less history... which I will cover in part 2 coming soon.

Book most of this came from: Economic Facts and Fallacies by economist Thomas Sowell

Sowell cites:

The Economist magazine
A New York Times article by Tama Lewin
Charles Murrays IThe Inequality Taboo"
Quarterly Review of Economics & Business, Feb 1961
Jesse Bernards: Academic Women
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970

AP Ignorance

2010-12-30T14:46:00.001-08:00

I go to ESPN.com to see if there is an article about Tennessee football at the Music City Bowl. Instead I found an interesting article on the spending at colleges on football teams. Ohio State and Alabama each spent over 30 million on their football teams this year. That is a large sum! They spent the article comparing teams spending and I thought the article was quite interesting. Boise State spends less than 10 million/yr on its football program. This is money on weight rooms, hotels, traveling, and other obvious expenses. But that was not what the conclusion of the article was. They built it up as if they were writing an interesting article comparing large SEC/BIG TEN schools to the smaller schools that spend far less. But instead more political crap.

They end the article arguing that priorities are wrong at these colleges that will spend on average $150,000/student-athlete for sports while the tuition of normal students is around $10,000 and that barely pays for their education. The article was talking about the priorities of the programs. What they failed to mention is that the football programs at universities like Tennessee take zero dollars from the education budget. Instead they donate big money to the university (such as the library at Tennessee got over a million this year). Former athletes like Peyton Manning come back and donate money to the school while no tuition money was spent on his football at all.

These football programs bring money into the universities. It is not about priorities. Or if it were I would vote for more of these football programs because it actually helps the education process if the football program makes a surplus and donates money to the education of their students. I'm tired of these political articles that are motivated by controversy even when there is not controversy. It reminds me of the past columns I've written on CEO salaries that people complain about. But if a CEO making a $30,000,000 bonus saves a company $1,000,000,000 over the year. Is that CEO costing the company $30,000,000 or saving the company $970,000,000? Read the past column for more info.

"Sending a messgage??"

2010-12-16T09:13:00.001-08:00

Some of the analogies in this post might not strike you as obvious and of the same principle but I do see this throughout our society.

I regard lying as one of the worst things you can do in society. While God looks at all sin as equal because its sin against him, us on earth do no such thing and should not do such. If businesses could break contracts (in essence lie to its customers) there would be no trust in our economy and thus a huge drop in investment will take place, less transactions in the marketplace and the economy will be hurt tremendously with our standard of living falling amidst it all.

However, this idea of using people at "examples" is getting on my nerves about as much as lying does. Bruce Pearl lied to the NCAA. Let me begin by saying that I can not read Pearl's heart and I'd say that he is more upset that he got CAUGHT than he is that he lied. But who am I to truly believe that and make that accusation. But I feel that the NCAA is about to make an "example" out of him and I hope they refrain from doing so.

There is no doubt that discrimination has taken place in our society. By the way there is proof that a true free market eliminates most discrimination in society. There is no doubt that violence is done to people due to them having serious "hatred" in hearts to these people. But should there be separate "hate crime" punishment because some court decided that in your heart you hated that person and we are now going to make "an example of you and punish you harder for being sexist or racist"? I think not. Crime is crime and violence is violence. Punish based on that not based on trying to rid someone of their hatred! This brings subjectivity into the law and that is wrong.

Today we always hear about trying to make an example out of someone to "send a message" to others about making the same mistakes. I can understand that to an extent. That is why they had public stoning and public crucifixions years ago. But this was done based on the writing law and consequences not some opinion of a court or body that decided to make this a "special" situation to send a "message". Bruce Pearl will probably be used as this "example". And don't get me wrong-he violated NCAA rules and then he lied about it. He also corrected that lie shortly after. But if the NCAA punishes Bruce Pearl more harshly than he has already been punished in an effort to "send a message"... then they are just as bad in my view.

I'm tired of our Congress wanting to punish those on Wall Street to "send a message" to other investors or future investors. Let the law be law and the rules be rules. Pearl lied. His integrity is now questioned. He cheated and should be punished. But the rules he broke were minor rules that if he had told the truth would have resulted in little punishment. He lied now should he be punished more? Sure, that is another rule. But lets not get caught up with this "sending a message" idea NCAA. Punish based on the wrong he has done. Take the subjectivity out of the question. I want our laws to be tougher and punishments to be harsher. That is after all what law is suppose to do. But I want it to be objective and each person punished equally for the laws they commit. Why? Because this is not a classroom where you treat everyone differently based on their past. This is law that we are talking about when it comes to our nation and her laws and rules and consequences. And all subjectivity should be taken out.

The NCAA can do as they want their a private enterprise and as a Libertarian I would never want them to be held to the same standard that government should be held to. But I hope they realize that Pearl should be punished based on his wrongdoings... not in a fashion to "send a message" to future rule breakers. The law and the rules and the punishments for such rules should already be written to do this objectively. No subjectivity is or needed nor should it be used.

Tax Debate

2010-12-11T11:50:00.000-08:00

Federal taxes are suppose to be designed to fund the federal government. They are not suppose to be punishments (sin taxes, etc.), they are not suppose to be designed to redistribute wealth, and they are not suppose to be designed for politicians to play with in order to get some kick back from a lobbyist or a vote from the taxpayer.

Taxes should be designed to finance the Constitutional requirements of our federal government without hamstringing the economy. But the last two or three weeks have been filled with constant discussion and argument on extending the tax cuts for some and not for others. Many liberal politicians and voters as well as non-liberal but economic illiterate American citizens want these tax cuts to be kept for the working and middle class but not for the "rich". This "rich" could range from $250,000 plus to $1 million plus income/year.

The unfortunate thing is that most people do not understand how over taxed our corporations and rich already are today. U.S. Corporations pay the second highest tax rate among all other industrial nations behind Japan. The Rich in America (those making say $300,000/yr and higher) are just 1% of the population but they pay over 30% of all taxes. The top 5% of income earners in America pay over 50% of taxes in our nation. This includes rich individuals but also Small businesses that make enough to be in this tax bracket.

Most probably do not know that. These numbers come from the IRS not some conservative think tank that tries to play with the statistics in order to support a political ideology. These are facts. Lets shortly look at some economic facts:

At higher prices people buy less whether that is goods/services, or if that is a business that hires workers. The more you pay in taxes on investment the less investment you will do because the risk that is offset from the big payout is now less due to the taxation of Dividends and Capital Gains of individual investors. Understand that it is rich people who hire other people. If you work for a "poor" person please write me and let me know. Most employers are "rich" or at least well off. Their taxes being low is what will help employment and help raise the GDP in our nation. Lets remember that.

For you wondering what tax structure I favor. Well I favor either a Flat tax or the "Fair Tax". I favor no taxes on investment and no taxes on corporations or businesses. The reason is that those entities do not pay taxes anyways, they just transfer that onto their customers with higher prices. Either way it is still a cost to that business and those businesses wood invest more without taxes.

Have a great Christmas everyone and lets hope that politicians start thinking with their heads and stop thinking with their hearts. The latter causes them to make terrible decisions that are well intended but have terrible consequences.

Economics Part 3: Prices effectiveness

2010-10-12T18:57:00.000-07:00

Prices are affected by two things: Supply and Demand. When the supply of a good is high prices tend to be lower. When supply is low, prices tend to be higher. When our demand for a good is high, prices tend to be high. When our demand for a good is low, the price is also low.

The benefit is that goods are allocated to their most valued uses. When our tastes in goods change from good A to good B, the price of B rises momentarily and thus resources are allocated or moved towards the production of B. This means the good that we want more, is supplied quicker. That is why innovation takes place in capitalist, price-coordinated economies quicker than socialist, government ran economies. Even more important is when supply is affected.

When a natural disaster hits a location, the supply is obviously affected by being destroyed and thus lowered. This then leads to a raising of prices. This rise in price leads producers to want to take advantage of this profit opportunity so they transfer or allocate resources to that area because this is where they are most valued at this time. The first companies to arrive there make generous profits. This is the incentive to arrive so quickly. That is why people arrived in New Orleans within hours of Hurricane Katrina taking place. When more and more companies arrive, the supply rises back up, and with all the competition, prices begin to fall again.

We can see that in a price coordinated economy, goods are effectively moved to their most valued areas. This is why our standard of living is so much better than most of the rest of the world.

Next post will discuss what happens when government puts price controls in place and thus not allow prices to freely function or change.

Economics Part 2: Prices

2010-09-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

The most basic and simple principal in all of economics is as follows:

People buy more at lower prices. People buy less at higher prices. Producers produce more at higher prices. Producers produce less at lower prices.

In a market price coordinated economy, prices guide consumers and producers to where goods are most valued. This is the reason that these type of economies have a much higher standard of living than countries that are coordinated by a central planner or some kind of command economy like North Korea, Cuba, or the Soviet Union of the past.

Prices are not a good or bad thing. Prices simply convey information to both consumers and producers. The most important information that prices convey are how scarce resources are. When prices are high that usually means that that resource is very scarce and not a lot to go around. Thus beach front property is highly expensive because there is far more people wanting to live on beach front property than there is room available. Some might complain that this means that only those who are "rich" can afford the most scarce products. To an extent that might be true. But at the same time under non-price coordinated economies the leaders of the country make those decisions. I'd much rather trust markets than some super powerful leader who has the power to tell me what and where and how much of something I can have.

Furthermore, due to beach front property being highly price, most individuals cannot afford this property and thus hotels and rental property is often built there allowing society to have an opportunity to enjoy this property instead of an individual being able to afford it to him or herself.

Prices convey information that resources are very limited but they can also convey the message that this good is readily available. Computer prices have fallen in recent years due to the fact that the resources are readily available and much cheaper than they use to be because of this fact. Without the mechanism of prices, people would buy too much of an extremely scarce resource and prices might not convey the information that this item is now readily available to people that it use to not be available to at an affordable price.

More on prices role next time

Economics Part 1: What, Why, and How

2010-09-04T08:41:00.000-07:00

Economics is defined best as: The study of the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

Simply put, economics studies how we get what we need and want when we get it. During the times of the garden of Eden there was no need of economics. Resources were unlimited. God supplied Adam and Even with anything and everything they needed. There was no reason to economize because there were not costs due to resources being unlimited. There was not work to be done in order to produce their food, water, clothing, etc.. God provided unlimited resources for them.

Today and ever since that time period in history, all resources no matter what that resource is, are scarce. Meaning that the sum of everything we want in life is more than what is available in society. We have unlimited wants but not unlimited resources. This is the idea of scarcity: that resources are limited.

Simply put, economics attempts to teach us the best way or "most efficient" way to spread out or "allocate" limited resources or "scarce resources" to the many different ways those resources can be used or in other words to their "alternative uses".

So that is what and why we have to economize. Allow me to finish part 1 with how we economize.

Most countries throughout history have relied on kings and lords to make decisions of how much to produce of a good and where and when to send it. All matter of production and distribution of resources were left up to the leader of a nation or small state or community. The lord was the leader of the manor in a Feudalistic economy. The dictator and the czar were the decision makers in a Communist nations. During Biblical times, kings were the decision makers. For thousands of years leaders made economic decisions.

Beginning around 1776 the idea that a market or the "invisible hand", as Adam Smith(author of the Wealth of Nations 1776) called it, could guide resources quicker and more efficiently. Meaning, instead of one leader sitting somewhere whether that be in Moscow, Russia or in Washington D.C., a market of prices would be in charge of allocating resources which have alternative uses. A market is made up of consumers and producers who are willing to come into agreements about what they want and what they are willing to give up to get it. And if those choices are left up to those consumers and producers and decisions were based on the costs or prices of making those agreements, then these decisions could be far more efficient since those individuals know far more about their own needs in their own situations than some arbitrary leader in some far away city.

Part 2 coming soon

Economics Series

2010-09-04T08:34:00.000-07:00

Now that I am teaching economics full time at Stone Memorial High School, my constant focus on economic principles have motivated me to begin a series on my blog in which I attempt to lay out why I think the way I think. I will attempt to show you why an economic way of thinking is so much different than the way of thinking many of you have been taught. But in reality this blog series will teach you about economics the same way my students are being taught it minus the hour and a half five days a week. This blog will not be as detailed but will teach you the concepts that allow me to think in a way that is usually different from many others, but practical in hindsight.

In the coming days and weeks and even months I will be posting many parts to this series that will be brief and easy to read and will teach any of you who are curious, about economics principles, the reason for economics, and how an economist thinks.

I hope you enjoy

"Radical"

2010-09-03T19:45:00.000-07:00

My brother recently preached a message about being "radical". Such a revealing message about truly believing what the Bible says as a true Christian. I would hate to try and compare the importance of that message to a political analogy and therefore I will not. But it got me to thinking about the fact that many people would call me a radical as well due to my political views.

Historically speaking George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and the many other founders are discussed and talked about as American Heroes. Founders of our nation that aside from slavery are some of the greatest men the word has ever known. King George called George Washington the Greatest man ever when he did not elevate himself up to dictator after the American Revolution.

These men and myself and many that think like me, believe in the idea of Federalism. The idea that local governments and states should make most of the governing decisions in our lives. They were not pro-democracy as some have suggested. In fact Madison feared Democracy and power to people who could not possible have the knowledge at hand to vote on every issue. They also hated the idea of a strong central government though as well. But they all believed in the formation of a "federalist" type government in which the Central "national" government had very little power outlined in the Constitution. While all other powers would be left to the states and local governments.

Yet today I'm considered a "radical" along with many other men in the world who still view "federalism" as the ideal form of a government system. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to name two men who favor this. Is it really radical to believe the way that those great founding fathers of ours believed? Is it really radical to believe that the federal government is inefficient in nature and that it should not do things that are not in the constitution such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Regulations on business, marriage issues, education, and the hundreds of other issues that it gets involved with.

If these men are great for starting this wonderful nation. We conservative libertarians can't be too "radical". Right?

My Income

2010-08-05T18:15:00.001-07:00

I'm excited to finally be able to settle down in Crossville, TN once again and begin doing what I love doing more than anything- Teach and Coach. I teach economics now and that is the subject that usually disagrees with the establishment thought. Being that I have a degree in the subject I disagree with some of the notions that my fellow colleagues have despite my love of working with them.

It rarely takes too long for the subject of teacher pay to come up when there is a room full of teachers meeting. Sometimes only one teacher is needed. A couple weeks ago I went out with a friend of mine from Knoxville named Brittany. She had a friend that she introduced me to and the first thing he said after meeting me and finding out I was a teacher was something along the lines of "Man, I love you public servants. I am one of the biggest supporters of teachers getting more pay for what they do. Your job is way too important to make so little."

I then told him I make roughly $25/ hour and he looked surprised. But its true. I work roughly 190 days only each year. I understand there is preparation that teachers have to put into their jobs but the same is true of many other professions that work all year. I have so much vacation time during the summer, a week in the spring, a week in the fall, a few weeks during Christmas, and all weekends and other holidays in between. As a first year teacher with only a B.S. I make roughly $25 dollars per hour. This does not include coaching pay (which is far far less)

His last line was that teachers should get more pay because their job is so important. It might be true that developing the minds of the future citizens of our society is more important than some occupations. But pay is not and should not be based on what I or any one other person believes is of great importance. In a free society, pay is based on a market that involves both supply and demand. This is because a "price-coordinated" economy, like ours is when government isn't involved, prices allocate scarce resources which have alternative uses. Put differently prices is what transfers goods to where they are most desired and needed and in some cases in low supply.

As a teacher I have chosen a worthy occupation and career that hundreds of thousands or millions of others have also chosen. Millions cannot choose to become surgeons because most people in America do not have the capability much less the determination and commitment to become a surgeon when more than ten years of training and extensive and high level education is required for such an occupation. Teaching is a somewhat easy degree to earn as it is a Social Science with far easier course work and far fewer years of training required.

We do have a shortage of qualified math and science teachers because within the teaching profession it is a tougher subject to teach and earn a degree in. Thus as an economist I believe those teachers should be paid more than I or a PE teacher where we have a surplus of qualified teachers to work in these areas. If this was ever allowed to happen, we would never have a problem finding math and science teachers. More would choose to earn their degree in those areas where they can earn more pay. That is how the market works. I know most teachers get into the profession for reasons aside from pay. But some teachers choose subject material that is easier than math and science because they know they will be paid the same despite it being easier. So no one can tell me that pay has nothing to do with our motivations. And there is nothing immoral or wrong with this either. That is why American prosperity and other Capitalistic price-coordinated economies have prospered so much. Prices coordinate resources to where they are most needed not where we believe the occupation is morally more important or valuable.

I love my job and my pay is sufficient. Not because I don't value what we teachers do. But because I value our economic system and the prosperity of our nation as a whole. And this prosperity has come about because scarce resources which have alternative uses are allocated more efficiently when goods go where they are in least supply and highest demand, instead of where good intentions might lead those resources.

Tuly Greedy

2010-07-04T12:24:00.000-07:00

If you watch the news and listen to politicians you will occasionally and actually with much repetition hear them talk about the "greed" of capitalists such as the banks and wall street investors. It is true that banks and wall street want to make as much money as they possible can. It is also true that we as individuals do as well. We can call this "greed" or we can call it human instinct. But greed is not what led to the housing crisis and thus economic recession. Regulations, government pressured loans, and terrible incentives generated by the promise of bail outs is what led to the bubble and since crash of the housing market leading us into a long and tough recession and now tough times. Recently the unemployment rate dropped to I believe 9.5%. That is good news until you read that it dropped because many people stopped looking for full time jobs and became "discouraged" workers. These individuals are then taken out of the labor market which makes the unemployment statistic improve. Without this statistical jargon, the unemployment would be just over 10%. What can be done?

In reality the quickest and best way to fix the current problems would be to stop the entitlement spending that our federal government does and overhaul the tax code. America has the toughest tax code to understand and the current tax code disincentives investment and expansion. People would be more willing to invest and create businesses if they knew that they could keep most of the money they worked hard to make. But in our system if a person wants to expand their business they must first know they are not just going to benefit a little from doing so but they must benefit enough to pay for the extra taxes, regulations, and oversight, before being willing to invest into that.

Why not overhaul the tax code? I like the Fair Tax which is a national sales tax that would then eliminate all other taxes that businesses and individuals pay. In other words you only pay federal taxes when you buy something and you don't even pay taxes on food at that. You also bring home your entire check from work and the acronym FICA becomes non-existent. This would generate many new businesses and jobs for the American People. There is one large problem with this. This eliminates the need for lobbyists to try and sugar up the politicians to get tax benefits for themselves. Businesses would strive under this fair tax but some businesses would not like this because of the added competition that it would bring. (competition benefits us as consumers though). Politicians benefit with donations to their reelection bids and perks by helping businesses get around certain tax laws. Politicians in other words have much more power under the current complicated tax code. Who is greedy? I say the politicians that refuse to let go of their power despite knowing full well America would benefit.

Happy Independence Day!!

You have made enough money!!

2010-04-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

Recently the President of the United States Barack Obama made a resounding statement in which he said: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." That statement while appealing to a certain sector of the population, is a rare and scary statement made by a man of such power. In fact it is a dangerous way of thinking. During a time where making money is hard to come by I definitely do not want to encourage those people who employ American Citizens that they should probably stop what they are doing, because "at a certain point you've made enough money."

Big Business owners and CEO's and those who have sold their companies to shareholders are those that the president are referring to. This is amazing to me. If you look back in history of our nation at when people like Gates and Buffett made most of their money, I bet you will find a correlation between that and employment in the United States. It is the richest in America that have ran successful businesses that employ Americans who need to work and work most of their lives until they retire late in life. If these rich Americans quit what they did these middle class Americans would be in major trouble. If these rich smart Americans gave up their jobs and let others do those jobs, those others might not be as good. Decisions that lead to layoffs could be made which will hurt those who are much poorer and working hard for a living on the floor level.

What is sad is that there are a lot of people in America who don't care and don't understand why this statement is dangerous for our nation's economy. Those some Americans probably support many of his anti-business policies. Those same Americans will be hurt by a policy that would have successful people to stop making money. And those same Americans might be so ignorant that they will not be able to look back and connect the dots. But they will love it when our welfare system is expanded even more to help them out.

Rich people, keep making money!

Books to read

2010-03-14T14:33:00.000-07:00

I love reading! Now that might not seem crazy to you but to know me growing up it would sound a bit off edge. I never read growing up. I would read a newspaper article about my schools sporting events but rarely anything else. In fact I am embarrassed to say that I rarely read the required reading from high school classes. But now that I am a smarter or more intelligent person, I will let you know that I love reading. Here are some books that you should consider reading if you like or somewhat are interested in where I get many of my ideas and joy of our great country.

For starters lets begin with interesting readings that might contradict ideas we believe to be common sense.

More Liberty Means Less Government- Walter Williams
-This book is one of if not my favorites.
Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism- Walter Williams
-This is much like the first book
-Both these books are a collection of his articles so there are plenty of places to stop reading and pick back up when most convenient.
Economic Facts and Fallacies- Thomas Sowell
-This is a very interesting book by a great writer.

After reading those books which should be interesting reads you might be open and would love to learn a bit about economics. Especially for you young people who are still considering a degree. Economics is needed and a great background for a future lawyers who might want to get into politics at some point.

Basic Economics- Thomas Sowell
Applied Economics-Thomas Sowell

You will learn all you have to know about economics from these two books. You won't be an economist but you will know whether you want to pursue further education. These books also do the best job of explaining a subject that most people believe is very confusing

For you who love history and want to learn more about our history and specifically an overview of our nation. These two books will go through our complete history and be like a survey of American History.

America: The Last Best Hope Volume I and II- William Bennett

For you who love specific history and more details of certain people or events read anything by the author David Macullough

Crazy Ideas

2010-03-03T11:49:00.000-08:00

Keep in mind that some crazy ideas did not seem so crazy at one point in our history and some ideas that people had years ago would be deemed to be crazy today. In fact it was crazy to imagine a world without slavery just over 150 years ago. But we know today that with the cheapest of labor the southern states were still worse off than the northern states who mostly did not use slaves. Today we would think it crazy to think the U.S. should bring slavery back.

There is no guaranteed right to vote even though there is an amendment that gives women the right to vote. Early in our history it was crazy to think that women or that men without ownership of land should be allowed to vote. Today many believe it would be crazy to say that some should vote and not others. I don't know about that. Our founding fathers were very scared of the idea of democracy. George Washington, John Adams, and the founder of the Federalist Party, Alexander Hamilton all feared democracy because they doubted the intelligence of all the masses of American people. Of course we know this was the thinking while they were losing power to the Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson who loved Democracy. But lets think about it today. Should a Middle school basketball coach and substitute teacher's vote count the same as Bill Gates' vote? I would argue probably not. And that is using me as an example much less the hundreds of thousands of drug addicts and alcoholics that can vote. Would it be a crazy idea to limit who can and cannot vote? Just a thought.

Finally, it could be considered crazy to revamp our education system and allow parents to take their children anywhere they want for school. I mean you would have schools doing everything they could to get those kids there and coaches would recruit athletes from other high schools and schools would recruit good students to their school so the school could get more money. It would be like a feeding frenzy! Crazy! And yet that would be much like our colleges today. You know the colleges that are ranked in the top of the world while our secondary education system is not even close to there. Crazy!!!

Are You Serious? Its a Commercial!!

2010-01-28T12:18:00.001-08:00

Recently I keep hearing this debate over the controversy of a pro-life commercial that is being produced by Focus on the Family. Tim Tebow and his story of nearly being aborted is the message of the commercial. Only in the United States of hope I don't offend a liberal American is this a story. Yes once again liberal advocacy groups are trying everything they can to not have this commercial shown. Its against my freedom to choose. What freedom to choose? There is nothing in the Constitution about that. There isn't anything in the Constitution about freedom of speech being tampered with either EXCEPT for by congress. The Constitution limits congress' ability to restrict your speech and since the government has absolutely nothing to do with this commercial, only a ignorant historian or Constitutionalists would even bring that up.

CBS can show any commercial they want. I don't remember Focus on the Family coming out and complaining about alcohol commercials. And if A Christian advocacy group did come out about something like that, Outside the Lines and other news sources would not be covering the story. But since liberals feel offended I seriously have to hear about this "controversy".

Sometimes it makes you think that if our nation truly had an open discussion about Abortion that more people might be persuaded to be against it. Maybe these liberals are afraid of that.

Dwight Lewis and Racism

2010-01-19T07:41:00.000-08:00

Most of you do not know who Dwight Lewis is and I did not either until 5 minutes ago. He is a writer in The Tennessean newspaper. He recently wrote an article saying that a black person still can not get a job coaching at the University of Tennessee. To be honest it is understandable that people would have these opinions due to the years of government supported racism and prejudice in our country (such as all other countries have experienced at one point). But why can we just not look at the situation itself and put previous feelings aside.

The University of Tennessee has had very few coaches in previous years. Johnny Majors, Philip Fulmer, Lane Kiffin, and now Derek Dooley. Tennessee thus can not be said to have a history of passing over blacks to be their coaches since they have only hired two people outside the Tennessee family in the past 30 some years or more. Most people will say that Mike Hamilton's Athletic Department Director position is on the line with this hiring. Do you think Mike Hamilton cares so little about his job that he would pass over a more highly qualified coach just because he was black when his job is on the line? I would assume he would hire the best possible candidate. Besides reports say he offered Lovie Smith the job. Last time I checked he was black. And he is far more qualified than Derek Dooley or Kippy Brown. But Dooley is more qualified than Brown.

We can accept the fact that Blacks play sports more than whites at the highest of levels. And I have written before about the reasons why. Many blacks pursue individual achievement due to family structures growing up more often than white people. They are not more selfish but they feel better about following individual accomplishment and not depending on others because they have had to do it all their life more often than white people (Divorce Rates, premarital birth rates, etc). Thus they pursue art (music) and basketball/football and they spend far more time working at it. They often play basketball till dark in the playground while whites are playing video games. I don't think the NBA or NFL or NCAA is racist. I think they understand how to run a business and thus recruit the better athletes. More times than not that is a black person. Whites choose occupations more often than not that allow people to work together and pursue occupations that are group oriented such as education, etc. Thus more are prepared to coach. In fact many white people are not as athletic and thus have to use coaching mentalities more often in order to have success against more athletic players. Thus their life prepares them for coaching and they don't even realize it.

Lets stop with the racism thing everytime a white person gets picked over a black person for a coaching job. It might have everything to do with performance and not color. Especially when the decision makers job is on the line. I would assume they would do everything they could to make the right choice.

What a Sad Day

2009-12-24T09:44:00.000-08:00

Today the Senate voted 60-39 to pass an overhaul healthcare bill that can and will change healthcare for the worse in our country. This is the first time that such an overhaul has been passed in our nation. Medicare mostly affects older people, Medicaid mostly does poor people, but this will affect us all.

It is sad that the U.S. Legislative Branch can pass such an expensive bill that strengthens the power of government far beyond what the Constitution allows. Now nearly if not more than 70% of what government does in this country is unconstitutional. In other words illegal according to our highest order of law in this country (Constitution). This is a power grab that could put Democrats out of power come mid-term elections. They are hinging their bets on the hope that the population that is helped by this will always vote for them and thus when added with those who are already die hard democrats it could keep them in power for years to come. I'm hoping that an ignorant American population will be more intelligent than I believe and will oust them in less than one year from now.

At a time when Europe is moving towards traditional American ways of life(although a long ways to go) and away from the larger federal government controls of their nations, the United States led by the Obama Administration and his liberal friends are moving America towards what Europe has already discovered to be disasterous.

More details about the bill and what I and others who are far more intelligent than I am later.

Random Thougts

2009-12-11T07:14:00.000-08:00

I have not blogged as often lately due to my distraction from the political landscape and my position as a head basketball coach which is time consuming and more fatiguing than I thought it would be.

I have read some interesting books of late though. One of these includes: Black Rednecks and White Liberals. The title is a bit misleading until you read the book. It is one of my favorite. I put off reading it due to the cover and title for a couple years. This proves don't judge a book by its cover. I"m reading a book about one of my favorite world leaders ever- Winston Churchill. I'm also reading a book full of letters written by our nation's founding fathers to their wives and friends. Its interesting being in the minds of some of the greatest people in our nation's history. If we all could read their letter we would all be better people and better writers.

I just read and deleted some "notes" that I had written a couple years ago on facebook when I first started the "blog" thing. I look back and realize how little I knew then, although I thought I knew a lot. I now know a lot. But I will only be successful if I can look back in a few years and read my current blog and realize I did not know a lot. (think about it).

The hardest thing to do is teach kids something that they don't learn as quickly as you learned it. We tend to judge people by our own achievements and strengths. If we judged people with our weaknesses in mind, oh how much we would love one another.

I thought John Wooden was wrong when he said he never spoke about winning and losing and only playing your best and if you do that then your always a winner. I always valued winning over everything. I hate losing. But so did John Wooden. He just viewed it from a different perspective. I coach a boys basketball team that has played about 10 games against teams that have starting lineups that average a combined 25 inches and 150 pounds in size advantage. That is like Bryan College against Duke every game. We have only played 2 games that our team could have a legit chance of winning if we had played our best. I now understand why John Wooden viewed it they way he did.

Making the right argument

2009-11-25T09:39:00.000-08:00

It bugs me to hear some people that I agree with on an issue debate using certain arguments. Even if they are right in their thinking and even if they have a good argument lets use the best argument possible to defeat something we do not like. Lets not argue that the new healthcare bill will drop or deplete some of the current benefits of Senior Citizens. Lets talk about the effects of healthcare on all of society in terms of rationing care and the effects on the production of new drugs and medicines. We know the rationing and lessening of production can be traced back to socialized government ran healthcare systems which do not motivate innovation of new drugs. Lets argue whether it is constitutional for the federal government to even take on such a task instead of talking about the deficit although that is a very important problem.

When arguing against gay marriage lets not only argue about the morality, but the Constitution. Does the Constitution of the U.S. say anything about marriage? No. So lets leave it up to the states. Do the state constitutions say anything about it? if not lets put it to a vote. If it is not in a constitution of any sort then judges should have zero say so. Lets not just talk about rights and equal rights and blah blah blah this is evil sin and so forth. Good argument. I believe homosexuality is not right in the eyes of God. But that argument does not work with all people. So lets educate ourselves better so that people don't close off their ears to us immediately. Lets try to debate them over on the obvious issues of Constitutions and what "rights" are truly granted in any constitution (most rights are protected and not granted since our founders believed our rights were 'inalienable' meaning cannot be created nor destroyed). Then when we have shown ourselves to not me radical theocratic then we can witness and maybe when them over on the morality issue. I'm not talking about the pulpit either. I'm all about preaching right and wrong from there. But in the public forum lets try to win as many on the issues as possible and not shun anyone out by jumping straight to the Christianity argument although I totally agree with it.

I'm just saying as Christians lets show that we love our country that God has blessed so much with and because we love it we know more about it and as Christians we read more than just the Bible because we are well rounded individuals. How many of us really do this?

Learning on the job something I already believed...

2009-11-11T15:00:00.000-08:00

I have had the impression that if you teach kids and expect a lot and quite frankly demand a lot, you will get a lot out of the kids as long as you explain why you expect a lot. Today's education "experts" would disagree with that notion and thus one education "expert" at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga told me to find a new hobby and give up being a teacher. I told her off and told her I disagree with the liberal mindset of teaching and we'll see how I do. Now I lost my first teaching job but the reports were that my kids liked me and well they scored higher on the standardized test than the other social studies teachers at my school and to be honest... I thought a lot of my social studies department there. So I am proud of that. I lost my job because I was tough on basketball kids most people believe. I said I would not change my mentality although I will continue to try and improve my coaching methods.

And now I have a bunch of middle school basketball players. They have not won a game in over a year and only won one or two a couple years before and have not won more than one or two for a few years now. We still have not won a game (of course we have only played three legit games). But I came down hard on these guys. I demand a lot. Throughout practice I just send the guys running all the time because they are not being productive at that time. I'm not punishing them I'm "disciplining" them. And our practices are physical now. I yell a lot. I encourage too but there is not a lot of that going on because we have not been executing what I want. But our boys are practicing and playing hard. I asked them today if they have liked recent practices because I have picked it up a notch and have gotten that much tougher. They said yes we love it.

Don't tell me today's kids are different. Don't tell me you have to be soft on these kids and can't expect a lot. That is insulting to them and I have told them that. In fact I tell them the more I yell at them the more they should feel flattered. Because that means I expect a lot from them... And lately and I believe in the future... I will be getting a lot..

The Quiet Majority

2009-11-09T07:01:00.000-08:00

Today nearly nothing makes me more angry than to hear someone say that their voice means nothing. Now this statement can be true in many instances. But when that voice is part of a major majority group who is afraid to speak up, than that "quiet majority" appears to be a minority and people in charge making decisions may decide to make the "loud minority" that appears to be the majority happy. I have explained this effect on my life just a year ago.

Most people in the country would not mind if Rush Limbaugh had owned just some 5% of the St. Louis Rams. But because that was a quiet majority and the loud minority said "NO!" the NFL pressured the other people in the group to get rid of Rush. I was watching a NFL program the other day and the music they played, licensed by the NFL, was a song from Marylin Manson. So it is ok to have a man who publicly urinates on the Bible, a book that a large majority in America form their religion from not to mention our laws are in large part based from, to have his music used for the NFL but someone who vocalizes something that many people were debating next to the water cooler can not own just 5% of one franchise?

Most people in America are against Gay marriage and recently that was proven on the Ballot in Maine a state that is not necessarily one of the more conservative states. In fact I don't know of one state where "marriage" has been allowed when put up for a vote. But in states where they allow judges and legislatures vote they often choose the side of the minority. This because that minority is the loudest.

I doubt most Americans would care if we stereotyped people at airports when checking baggage. In other words for those people who are much like the groups who have committed terrorist attacks against our nation, maybe pay closer attention to them. Most do this anyways. In fact I believe it was Jesse Jackson who has said that he is nervous walking on the side of a street in a city at night when he hears footsteps behind him... until he turns around and sees that it is a group of "white" people and he is relieved that is was not "black" people. That might sound racist but Jackson was stereotyping the situation but since he is Black himself he is not portrayed racist.

Most would not have mind if a member of the U.S. military would have reported that the recent man who murdered over a dozen people and injured nearly three dozen had said controversial statements. But many would be afraid since the man is Muslim that they would be shun down for being "racist" and those in charge are probably hesitant to investigate the situation due to the same charges. In fact there was an investigation that was going on. I wonder if that investigation was ever at all held up in delay due to not wanting to offend someone due to their religion or ethnicity? Either way I doubt the majority of Americans would have mind. But since us majority of conservative Christians choose to be silent... we look like a minority. So speak up!

Zero-Sum Equations

2009-10-31T10:59:00.000-07:00

Mathematics is simple- 5+3=8, Also if you have 5 blocks here, and move three of them over there, you only have 2 left here. Zero-Sum Games are easy to understand. If you use something to work on this, that means you do not have it to work on something else. That much is simple. In economics everything is a bit more complicated because economics uses things to produce wealth. So if you spend money on this it is true that you do not have that money to spend on something else but it is also true that if you spend money on something productive than wealth is created and thus everyone benefits in society.

The Obama administration wants to talk about jobs saved or created from the stimulus package that will eventually spend over $700,000,000,000 on different projects around the nation. I wanted to write out the zeroes so you understand just how big that number is. It is true that jobs are created when that money is spent. I do not like it when conservatives on FOX NEWS or anywhere else talk about how you cannot prove that jobs were saved or exactly how many jobs were created... blah blah blah... It is true that there is no way to determine how many jobs were saved due to a stimulus package. It is also true that a President will exaggerate numbers to make his projects look better than they are. That is a story that needs to be discussed. But it is also true that jobs are created and saved...But that is beside the matter...it is not the best argument against a stimulus package or government spending money.

The government has nothing to spend unless it takes if from citizens of this country or people visiting this country. Thus $700,000,000,000 that the government spends is $700,000,000,000 less money that humans can spend for themselves. So the simple argument that we good Conservatives use should be this: Did Obama and his administration including the politicians in Washington both Democrat and Republican spend that money as wisely as we would have? That is the most important question. Instead of taxing us or going into more debt to pay for such a stimulus package could they have simply cut spending and given us the tax break so that we could have spent the money somewhere. In more simpler and straight terms... are they smarter than you and I are with out money? Can they spend your money more wisely than you can spend your own? Conservatives should make it personal in your debate!

Encouragement... I think from God

2009-10-17T15:38:00.000-07:00

Last night I went to Sequoyah High School to watch a football game in which Sequoyah was having homecoming. I was asked to go in fact here on this blog by a former student of mine... Kenny. Kenny won Homecoming King and was so excited and I too for him. I love that kid I really do. Kenny is a very hyper kid who sometimes loses control of his emotions but inside he is precious and so are many of his friends who allow him to enjoy life about as much as anyone you will ever meet. It was truly a great night for him but more so for me.

Sequoyah is the school I worked at last year that chose not to rehire me for unknown reasons. In truth I got fired but in the teaching profession they only call it "firing" if your are forced out during the school year or after you have been teaching into your fourth year. So lets call it what it was... I was fired!

During the day Friday I took something to the principal there to give my former basketball boss. When I walked into his office the Associate Principal was there and she stood up and gave me a hug. I left and walked into the guidance office to visit someone and one of the guidance counselors stood up and gave me a big hug and talked to me about what I had been up to. She said they had missed me. I went to the game that night but before getting to it went into one of the secretary's houses who's son is a friend of mine... she too gave me a hug. When going to the game I had two parents come up to me and tell me how mad they were about me not being brought back and how they thought I did a good job and I'm better for it not being there. I had students and other parents come up and hug me and tell me they miss me. Some of the students, students who are not the "cool loving" students meaning students who are in school for the main reason of getting an educating and advancing their lives and liking teacher who teach them and are not just nice, funny, cool or whatever came up and said they really missed my class and now that they have new teachers talk about how my class truly was a great class. Two fellow teachers who might have not come to the game due to weather and hunting came I believe in large part to visit and see me because they knew I was going to be there. I know for sure one went for that reason.

This weekend was a weekend of great encouragement. It reminded me of why I still go back there and visit from time to time despite not being rehired by the central office. It reminds me of why I went into teaching. For the students and teachers who are around me. You don't teach mainly for money and I don't work for the central office people making the decisions without the best intentions all the time. I work for students and good parents who care about their kids. I love those people I really do. I miss them and wish I was still there. But things happen for a reason and I love where I am. Although I'm not a full time teacher I still like it and I love being a head coach and I like the people I'm working with and for. I have had a really tough few months and I am not back to where I was before I lost my job. But I'm well on my way. It was only a few weeks ago that I was afraid I would not be back on my way for a long time maybe years and to be honest the end of my worries were no where in sight. But God works in funny ways. And the great thing is I did not even deserve it. I really don't. I'm not in the best place in my life now and need a lot of work spiritually with my faith being weakened and in many other ways. But this was one giant step forward.

Thank you Sequoyah and thank you God.

-Jess

Some facts are irrelevant

2009-10-16T10:58:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately a population that is ignorant on so many issues (myself included) are led to believe that certain facts mean there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Japanese people live longer than Americans and thus they must have better healthcare... That would make sense to some people but that statistic alone proves only one thing... they live longer... it does not answer why. Most experts today say it is their diet. In fact many in Japan are changing their diet to a more western approach and some in Japan are worried that there will be health problems arising from this change. It has nothing to do with Healthcare. A separate argument can be made about diets in that some in the west would rather eat comfortably like we do and live till 70 than eat like Japanese do and live till 85.

Black Americans have a higher rates of miscarriage than do whites. Blacks have less healthcare and that is why. Would this be true? Well if it is how do you explain that Mexican Americans have a lower rate of miscarriage than do whites and have less healthcare than even Blacks?

The life expectancy in Europe is longer than in America and they have government provided Universal Healthcare does this mean America should switch? Americans drive far more than Europeans this could cause that life expectancy to be much lower since we have far higher rates of death during travel. Also they walk more and thus are probably in better shape than we are so thus live longer. It is hard to judge where healthcare really causes people to live longer.

The best measure I know is where do people around the world try to get their operations done? Where are by far most medicines invented? Where are waiting times shorter? Who has the highest rated doctors? America. America. America. America. There are serious problems but lets make sure we don't allow politicians and media outlets use facts to distort the truth despite telling a truth.

Loud Voices

2009-10-11T15:03:00.000-07:00

If conservatives have a biggest weakness it is the lack of ability to express their ideas in interesting, ecstatic, easily understood fashion. Maybe conservatives do not care about their cause as much as Liberals. Maybe they are afraid to offend someone. This isn't just about politics either.

I had no intention of writing a blog entry this evening but as I was checking up on my fantasy football team I noticed a column that was written by Chris Mortensen of ESPN that the NFL players union president had either written a letter or personally spoken to the NFL commissioner about not allowing Rush Limbaugh to become an owner in the NFL. This enraged me but not in the obvious way. It reminded me of so much more. If a liberal radio host who has said 10 times as many controversial things that were 10 times as controversial, would a conservative speak up and express their dislike of the idea of that person becoming an owner. Sure I would not speak up on this issue because it does not matter what the owner's politics are. But it still brings up a good point. I do not know if the protest will carry any weight in the decision process. But it definitely could. And if the bids are equal and there was a toss up it might pressure the Rams into being sold to a different buyer.

I was not rehired at my job last year. I loved my job and the people I worked with. They did not have to give me a reason for not rehiring me. It has been a really tough 5 1/2 months for me. I had the fewest number of kids and lowest percentage of kids fail the End of Course standardized test that high school history students in Tennessee take. I believe I had the most students who had Special Individual programs as well meaning I had some tough classes to teach. This is something I take pride in because I considered the Social Studies department at my school to have been a really good department with mostly really good teachers. Our basketball team doubled our wins that year despite losing the best player on the team from the previous year. I had high ranking people in the school that supported me including my mentors and in essence the leaders in my department and athletic department. My head coaches supported me too. Yet I was not retained to teach or coach. Most believe there were some complaints from parents. There were alot of parents that supported me. I found that out later. Some spoke up after news got out that I was not going to be brought back. But from what I have been told the other parents had been louder longer. No doubt I made mistakes everyone does. but I deserved to have been rehired. I was usually the first to get to school and in many cases one of the last to leave because I was a coach in basketball and baseball. I am not angry with the school and am happy coaching at another school today. But if those wonderful supporting parents called to express support all year this would never happen to many teachers in our country. Think about it though, how often do you call or write a letter to someone about a great job being done in any aspect of life? How often to you speak up when something is done that you hate? The loudest voices in many of our churches are keeping progress from happening. There are people I know that want some changes at local organizations in which many people are upset and for good reason but they refuse to speak up and they say it is because "it won't help."

Unfortunately good parents and decent people rarely speak up being afraid of offending someone or not believing it will change anything. How much more would get done in this world if the right people spoke up. Recently it has worked on Healthcare. Maybe we should learn from that and speak up with loud voices.

Rush Limbaugh

2009-10-10T07:48:00.000-07:00

I have never written about Rush Limbaugh in any of my blogs and I don't ever remember even mentioning him in a blog. Recently Rush has teamed up with another very rich man to buy the St. Louis Rams football team. Rush grew up I believe in Kansas City where he also got his start as a radio personality. Rush Limbaugh is the most listened to radio host in the history of radio. He has between 15-20 million listeners each week which is incredible. I am not going to talk much about my personal like of Rush Limbaugh. Most who read this know me and know where I stand on him. But I also love Pardon the Interruption on ESPN but recently Michael Wilbon has really disturbed me with what I consider a reconsideration of an opinion when one NFL player of the NY Giants came out against Rush Limbaugh. Originally Wilbon was seemed excited about the prospects of Rush and even said that most of his opinions are probably shared by other owners. Then after this player spoke up the very next day his tone changed and he seemed as if he hated Rush.

I would like to first hear from that player of the Giants how many times he has actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. I don't mean hear a 20 second clip that is shown on MSNBC or some TV talk show or overhear some other players talk about him. How many times has he actually sat down and listened to Rush on radio? I doubt very much maybe never. How does he know what Rush Limbaugh thinks about him or other Black people. I have never heard Rush say anything that should be offensive to all Black people in the nation. He has said some things about certain cultures of certain Black communities but he has also said things about White cultures in different places, and about different races around the world. Walter Williams fills in and hosts his radio show sometimes when Rush is out and unable to do so. Walter Williams is a Black college professor at George Mason University. If Rush was racist or a "bigot" as Wilbon said would a Black person fill in for him? I doubt it unless that person hated himself and his race.

It is unfortunate that ONLY Liberals are those who are considered so pro-Black or African American in this country. Rush Limbaugh denounces policies that have destroyed many families including many Black families because many government policies were designed to help inner-city families mostly Black families. Read my past blog entries on Rent Control and you will see where well intended policies passed by politicians that Michael Wilbon would never call a bigot and would probably like, have in fact destroyed many black families by in forcing them to move due to a lack of low cost housing being developed. It is unfortunate that on many college campuses well qualified Black Students are looked down upon because of the stereotype that is in place due to government laws such as Affirmative Action that allows many unqualified people (in many cases minorities) to go to colleges they would not be able to get into without the law. Then almost all Black students are effected despite many being just as qualified or even more qualified than the White student looking down upon them.

If Rush had his way many of these unfortunate stories would not exist. Taxes would be much lower and more low income people would have jobs. I hate it when people redicule someone even though they have never actually listened to the man talk. And I guarantee you that if you were on the air 15 hours a week for over 20 years... you would have at one point accidentally said something that might not sound polite and worse yet... you might not actually believe. But should you be hated for the rest of your life for it?

Some Bad Luck

2009-10-04T08:59:00.000-07:00

I believe luck is where preparation meets opportunity. Good luck happens to those who prepare and eventually have opportunity to have good luck. Lets look at some of the bad luck in recent years for the Tennessee Vols Football Team. Take a look at the recruiting classes that Tennessee has signed in recent years. Go back some four years and take a look at the recruits.

I hear this talk about Fulmer not leaving Kiffin with a lot of talent but then you look at our recruiting classes and you would believe that we would have a top ten team. Take a look at the names and the rankings on Rivals.com. Look at all the 5-star athletes that have not panned out and the 4-star players that can't get on the field. It would appear that Tennessee has had some really bad luck recently. Fulmer has signed people like Chris Donald and Brent Vinson and Walter Fisher and remember that short stunt with Kevin Oneal the JUCO WR? He was suppose to be a stud. These guys were 5-star athletes that never panned out. Is that bad luck? What about Crompton who was nearly a 5-star QB, much higher raking than Erik Ainge was out of high school and yet despite the hatred of Ainge by some of my friends out there... who would not fast for a week to have him back leading the Offense of Tennessee. So many players have not become what we thought they would be. It hurts me so much I love Tennessee Football.

Could any other preparation taken place to change this? If we had those players pan out and the other 4-star Offensive Lineman we signed when Jacques McClendon was signed become as good as he has would we not be a top 10 team? Its a thought. Does this happen to all colleges? I think. SO how do you prepare for that? Anyone who has any ideas please comment. I think Kiffin's staff is doing the one thing you can do. Sign as many studs as possible and hope some pan out. That is why they are signing so many people in the same position. Hoping that if some do not pan out... maybe others will.

I was bored and decided to write something that was not about the most interesting subject in the world.... Economics... Just kidding

18% unemployment among young people

2009-09-29T16:39:00.000-07:00

Yesterday an economic report showing that 18% of young people looking for a job were unemployed. Notice it says "looking for a job." one in five young people who want a job can not find one. It is not a surprise to me knowing the current situation we have in our nation and the laws that are in place to help that 18 percent as well. You say "What Jess"? What does the laws that are in place to help them got to do with the situation? It have everything to do with it... It is causing it!

Wages is a cost to an employer. The employer pays rent, wages, interest, capital, etc... Wages is by far the highest cost to most employers. In other words the pay that a person gets is a cost to the employer. If vehicles had a new tax put on them that raised the price what would be the consumers reaction? If you said buy fewer vehicles then go to the front of the class your right as Professor Walter Williams would say at George Mason University. The same is true to employers. If the cost of wages goes up then he will buy less and instead save that money or buy more capital (machines) as a substitute for it.

With minimum wages recently rising to well above $7.00/hr the cost to employers is significant. When talking about a company that employs 100,000 employees and 90,000 work at minimum wage, the price to the employer per hour of work has increased over $180,000/hr. That is well over $1,000,000/day if those employees are working 8 hour shifts. It is understandable that those employees would love high wages and we would love them to have them. But why not make it $12.00/hr if $7.50 is good? The fact is the market (employee/employer) is in the best position to decide how much pay is needed to do a job. If the employee wants more he can ask for it the employer can deny or comply. If enough employees believe they are worth more then the employer will have to comply or will risk losing his/her workforce. But when government takes that job then bad decisions can come about without the cost being seen... until the news comes on and reports: "18% unemployment among young people" who typically work at those low wages.

Freedoms???

2009-09-17T14:50:00.001-07:00

A comment that was left on an old blog yesterday and a recent news story that has made some recent headlines has awaken a very important topic that I want to point out to people. Everyone always talks about how it is America where we have the freedom to protest, speak, free religion, etc. But I do not understand where the bases of that argument comes from. I believe it is great that in America we allow freedom of religion and speech and press, etc. But there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us those freedoms. Everyone says "Yes there is!! it is called the Bill of Rights!" Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that you have the freedom to do this or that?? You will not find it.

What you will find is that Congress shall make no law restricting... The Constitution limits government and what the FEDERAL government can or cannot do. The Federal government cannot throw you into jail for disagreeing with its government. But that does not mean you can stand up in school and rant about the evils of whatever and think that you have the "right" to do that and should not be stopped. That would be ridiculous to think that you can disrupt anything at anytime. Two boys were asked to leave a Minor League baseball game recently because they refused to stand up during "God Bless America". I don't care what race these boys were or if they were girls or of a different religion. They had the right to do that. They have the right to sit down and not stand up during the pledge of allegiance or anything else. But the Minor League baseball club as a private organization also has the right to force them to leave the stadium and never come back.

When we think of rights we always think of the individual or this "I" idea. But businesses have rights too. They are not granted in the Constitution but endowed by our Creator. CEO's might be overpaid at some industries but that corporation has the right to pay their CEO whatever they want. You, nor I, nor Uncle Sam should be allowed to do anything about it.

So please stop calling into radio shows about how America is great because we have the freedom of expression blah blah blah blah blah.... Tell me something I don't know... America is also great because a private business owner has just as many rights to throw you out of his stadium for disrespecting our country and can pay their employees whatever he or she wants. Then you can tell that employer to shove it where the sun does not shine and not work there if you would like as well. That my friends is what makes America so great.

Baseball and Economics

2009-09-14T08:38:00.000-07:00

A couple weeks ago I was watching the Atlanta Braves and heard a very interesting statement that the Braves Organization had made that.. well struck the economics nerve in my body (running throughout my entire body). Post season is around the corner and the rosters can expand for post-season purposes. The Braves usually call up a couple pitchers and catcher from Triple A and then maybe a utility infielder and possible outfielder. But at this point in the season they had only brought up the first three. The announcers then explained that during these economic times (where the Braves revenue is not what it use to be) that they can not afford to bring up the amount of players they would like. That was not the end of the statement. He said that due to the increase in the minimum major league baseball salary that they could not afford to bring those players up.

That is really sad to me a former baseball player that at one point going into college had aspirations of playing minor league baseball and if all goes well maybe having that rare some say 10% shot at playing major league baseball. 10% because that is the percentage of minor leaguers that ever get to suit up in the "Big Show" or major league team. A couple players missed out on this chance not because of bad economic times but because major league baseball and the players unions etc.. do not know enough about economics that they make rules that do not allow the market to adjust to current economic turmoil. Those players being left off of any major league team due to this would probably be willing to come up for a raise of ZERO. They would take the league minimum that was in effect in the 80's. But they do not have that choice. They have to be paid the league minimum or can not play. That is sad but yet that happens everyday.

The National minimum wage is over 7 dollars. Many businesses do not think that certain employees are worth over 7 dollars so they do not hire those prospective employees. We complain that they can afford it but they care only about profits. That is true but with so many businesses barely staying out of red ink and others losing jobs don'y you think they might have a point. Most people being paid minimum wage come from middle class families and are children that would like to work and maybe afford a car to drive around instead of the family automobile. Yet politicians ruin their chances everyday with careless political laws that the population as a whole likes because they know so little about economics. Our unemployment rate would not be this high if a person who was laid off could be hired for $4.00/hr. You might say "he is worth more". Well let him or her make that decision but telling the employer "thanks for the offer but shove it..." Or the person might say to his wife "I found a temporary job till I can get my old one back when the economy recovers. At least we can afford food without food stamps."

Don't Ruin the Ted Kennedy Legacy

2009-08-26T14:23:00.000-07:00

I am not a fan of Ted Kennedy. I do not want to hide that fact. I am sad when anyone passes away and it is sad when that person is a high profile figure that has served his country. I am not blogging to speak of the disagreements I had with Ted Kennedy most of which are based on his unconstitutional thinking and socialist leaning tendencies. Ok that is enough of that. His life is a testament though to something great about America.

America's healthcare has many faults. Most of those faults have to do with government regulation that does not allow a true free market to exist. You know its one of those "healthcare is so important we can not allow it to go unregulated in the free market" type deals. The fact is that most things in the unregulated free market is what we Americans like best. Ted Kennedy had the best healthcare available. He was given many choices of healthcare to choose from when he became a U.S. Senator. He was not forced on one plan nor was he in a position where his private insurance companies had to worry about competing with a public option that had no profit incentive and thus could charge lower prices and eventually force businesses to drop health coverage or sign all their workers up on the public option. Kennedy had the very best to choose from.

I know he sponsored and fought for a public healthcare option. But in his old age I bet he did not use Medicare services. No, he had the best privatized care. Healthcare is not something that our leaders honestly believe will better all our lives. It is a way to get more control of our lives and spread wealth from those who have to those who do not have. Ted Kennedy would have never chosen a public option over private health insurance. Do not use his name to push this reform through. I know he championed it, I know he supported it, I know universal healthcare was one of his big causes. But this is a case of "do as I DO not as I SAY" moment. His life is a testament to choices not socialized medicine despite him praising and supporting such reform. We should honor his passing by explaining what he "did" not what he has "said". And what he did was CHOOSE the best private healthcare you can find.

... Lets build on that

Taxes on the Wealthy = Taxes on Everyone

2009-08-17T07:31:00.000-07:00

Let me assure you I believe that wealthy individuals should pay more taxes in this county than do poor individuals, lower class, middle class, or upper middle class. This would be true under almost any tax system including the Fair Tax, Flat Tax, a progressive income tax, regressive income Tax, etc... But lets keep in mind that politicians love votes and they are going to try and tax the fewest people they can so that those who do not pay taxes are more inclined to vote for them. To operate this huge government that minority of people chosen must be those that those politicians love to declare as "rich". This is possible due to our ignorance of economics in our country. Let me explain or better yet allow Neal Boortz to explain.

The link below is a little longer read than most of my blog entries. I want to assure you that if you read this you will understand in the fullest why raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing especially during a time like this. You will also learn who is truly looked upon as "rich" and will learn that most of those "rich" are in fact not rich. Enough of the amateur...

This Link will give you the real life deal

Pre-existing Conditions=Discrimination=Good Thing

2009-08-11T10:20:00.000-07:00

One of the complaints about our current healthcare system in the country (I have plenty of mine own) is that insurance companies discriminate. They do this by not allowing individuals with pre-existing conditions to have immediate healthcare coverage. This has led to the President to push for a Public Option (which will lead to universal healthcare and more than likely a single paying system) for government paid (taxpayer paid) insurance plans. This argument has been met with very little resistance on the part of other politicians and individuals. Yes healthcare overhaul has met a lot of resistance but this destructive language against insurance companies for discriminating has not been met with resistance. Why?

Most Americans do not love ture freedom and independence. Americans today hear a President say something that sounds kind and compassionate and they just love it and never give it much thought. But God forbid we actually listen to him and force insurance companies to not be allowed to discriminate on these conditions. This is one of the most anti-freedom statements a person can make. Lets face it, why should I be responsible to pay for or more importantly why should an insurance company not be allowed to choose who they want to insure and not. Since when should government have the right to deny a private company to choose who they work with and don't. The sad thing is that we have come so far left in this country that no one even gives it thought. If a person with pre-existing conditions is given insurance due to government forcing the insurance company to undertake that risk, those costs will simply be spread out throughout the pool of other people who have insurance. In other words, we without pre-existing conditions will be forced to pay for those with those conditions.

A company should be allowed to charge what they want to whom they want if that person is in agreement on receiving health insurance from that company. That company should also be allowed to not insure a person if they feel it is too much of a risk. The Solution is to allow people to pay different amounts for their insurance based on the agreement with that insurance company. If a person who smokes a pack a day, drinks a pack a day, and is 80 pounds over weight comes in and wants insurance, they should be allowed. That company should also be allowed to charge that person what they want including more than the non-drinking, non-smoking, and healthy person. The healthy person does not cost that company as much so they should not be forced to pay as much. This will also motivate people to take care of themselves as it could save them thousands in premiums each year. No more fat police just make people pay for what they cost. When you spread it out, there is no motivation to conserve and in this case be healthy.

If that person is not able to afford insurance just as older people might not be able to afford it because it is more expensive with the obvious more costs, then private companies such as churches should be allowed to help them afford their insurance. There are many other reforms we can make now that can fix many of these problems and in fact make health insurance cheaper. The answer is not a communist-dictator like idea of forcing people to pay and take care of other people whether the person is an individual or a company that would rather not insure them. Where have our freedoms gone? More importantly, where has our common sense gone where people object to this in the first place?

Why I love Economics and most people do not

2009-08-04T18:38:00.000-07:00

Economics is believed to be a very difficult subject and concept to grasp and thus very few people can stand it much less like or love it. The Praxis exams that teachers must pass in order to earn certification to teach a subject in high school are not hard. But the economics test is by many standards the hardest if not by far the hardest. I took it two weeks ago. I agree and I know a lot more about economics than most people and in fact most economics teachers even those who have been teaching it for years.

When we teach economics we teach the complicated parts of it first and try to apply it to real life. That is not the correct method. It confuses people and they quit and lose interest. Economics is not the study of graphs and big words like so many teachers teach. Call me a conspiracy theorist but sometimes I wonder if that is done on purpose by our education establishment. You say why would they do that? The more economics you understand the less government and bureaucracy you like. Our education system is exactly that in fact and thus most economist hate the way our education system is ran in the U.S.A. The less you know the less you will hate it.

Economics is simply the study of the efficient allocation (spreading out) of scare resources (obviously there is not an unlimited supply of stuff) which have alternative uses (those resources can be used on different things). That is not too complicated. It simply says this: When a resource or good is used for X, just because a benefit comes about does not mean it is the most efficient allocation of that good. If 100,000,000 million dollars is spent on teaching sex education in schools and the pregnancy rate drops 1 percent with very little if any drop in STD's most would say "just one life is worth saving!" "There is not price on life." That is not true. The cost of 100,000,000 million dollars spent on Sex education is not 100,000,000 million dollars. That is paper representing value. But the "COST" is that thing in which you did not spend the 100,000,000 million on that you could have if chosen. In other words if the 100,000,000 million could have hired more police officers or built more prisons to house sex offenders and thieves and murders, how many more lives could have been saved or helped than it being spent on sex education?

Many economist are considered "uncompassionate" So many are in fact that the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is used today by many politicians who want republicans and conservatives to care more about people like say liberals do. But it is the economist that cares more because he wants the most people to benefit from the money spent.

I love economics for many reasons. One reason is that I love I just absolutely love.... being right. LOL Most of my friends would argue that I always think I'm right. I can't argue there that is an accurate assumption about me. But so does everyone else believe that their always right. But economics opens the window for knowledge that can only be grasped through economic analysis. I have learned more in the last four years about society than I did in the first 22 of my life. Economic analysis is what I use to make most of my opinions.. and because of that... I believe I am right usually. It is not being cocky... it is economics that allows for it.

P.S. If you want to understand economics buy just two books. I promise they are easy reads and this complicated subject will be made much easier.

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell

You will understand economics and your views on so much will change I guarantee it.

Most important part of healthcare in this blog

2009-07-23T08:00:00.001-07:00

In the past I have written blogs about our healthcare system while also laying out some alternatives that I believe would make our system cheaper, more efficient, and more productive. Yet last night I believe I had a revelation on why so few have embraced a conservative libertarian view of healthcare while that view has so helped America be prosperous in other economic activity throughout Her history. I will now attempt to explain this revelation:

Barack Obama used the example of a child having Leukemia and not having the insurance to pay for the proper procedures in dealing with this awful disease. Besides the fact that an emergency room is not allowed to turn away any emergency in this country it is true that without proper insurance people will not have available to them some of the procedures that can save a person's life. It is an emotional situation to say the least. Economics is not about emotion or compassion but the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. In other words, it studies the best way to make available to the most people resources that are valuable to human beings. Does this mean all resources? No but the study of the BEST way of allocating these resources. While some still will not have access to those benefits.. it guarantees that MORE people will have it with correct economic decisions than do under other ways of making those decisions such as using Obama's plan-GOVERNMENT to allocate those resources.

There will always be stories of those who are not helped by this system but it is impossible to count the amount of people who would be affected under a system that we don't currently use. That is unless we study the systems of other countries. Far more people do not have access to basic services and extreme procedures in countries where the government to whatever extent runs the healthcare system. But I have seen conservatives use this argument before and yet it seems to not work. So last night this revelation appeared to me. Our lack of history knowledge does not allow Americans to be happy with the advances our society has made. Who cares that 100 years or 50 and in some cases just a couple decades ago these procedures that are available now were not even known of then. But yet today we expect every human to have a right to those procedures. The problem with people having a right to anything is that it takes away the profit motive of developing newer and better procedures. This is why the United States invents over 85% of all new medicines and procedures. Our companies have a profit motive to make better things and more efficient. In other government ran places those motives do not exist. Today we want more and more and more and to a point that a very good politician can make speeches and possible persuade us into believing that government can do a better job. But in countries where government does this there is not innovation motive.

As sad as it is that some people do not have healthcare and that costs are rising and hurting people. Our system while having many problems is the only reason that these current procedures that some people can not get... are available to begin with. When will conservatives rise up and explain to people that there are other ways to help these people and that destroying the system that has created these wonderful things is not the correct way.

The Worst Thing to do Right Now!

2009-07-15T16:38:00.000-07:00

The American GDP (Gross Domestic Product) which is the sum of all products produced and sold in a given year is large. Only 10% of this GDP is kept as profits by companies. That is of all the trillions of dollars spent on goods (11-12 trillion) only 1 dollar for every 10 spent is kept as profit. I believe this is Gross Profit (profits before paying wages and variable costs such as electric bills) but it might very will be Net Profits which is the profit after those payment. Either way while we hear about the millions and billions of profits companies make in reality their profit margin is quite small. When costs go up they have one of three options. They can reduce dividend pay outs to stock holders which hurts their future investments, they can cut technology investment (this makes production more productive, efficient, and thus cheaper for the future by using machines, or finally they can cut workers or as we hear it - lay workers off.

Now, over 60 percent of costs and in fact for most companies well over 70% of costs to companies are paid in wages to workers. This is the largest cost to a employer. Thus when the economy slows guess what is the most efficient cut to make? If you said worker cuts then you can head to the front of the class as Professor Walter Williams use to say to his students when sitting in the front of the class was in fact a privilege to students. Well guess what happens on July 24 while businesses are struggling (meaning mostly having trouble paying wages and already laying workers off)? If you said oh wait that is the date set for Minimum wage to rise to $7.25 then once again move to the front of the class. Now for you usual blog readers of mine who should be amateur economist by now... what do you think that means for the future? I hope you said more layoffs of workers. Yes even if jobs are eventually created as the economy revives, fewer jobs will be created due to this major hike in minimum wage. I predict more jobs continue to be loss and unemployment could rise to as high as 11% or more.

For you minimum wage workers, good luck on keeping your job

Unexpected Consequences

2009-07-12T15:50:00.000-07:00

Unexpected Consequences are serious bi-products of decisions made that are not only unexpected but in many cases tied unseeingly to those decisions. In other words its hard to link those consequences to the decision and thus easier to make more bad decisions. If politicians create these consequences but the public does not see the link... they are not more likely to vote him or her out of office.

One of the most common argument made by people who favor bailouts for individuals that are going to lose their home if government (meaning tax payer) does not pitch in and help is that their loss will cause property values to dwindle and thus it is to your benefit that we bail those people out who made bad decisions. So in practical use it looks like this: You rent an apartment because you believed that you did not have the money to buy your dream house thus conserving for your future. However someone your age in the same situation does buy that house and come to find out they cannot afford that house so the government wants to use your tax dollars to help that person so that it does not hurt your property value in the future. This probably now seems immoral to be put that way but beyond that it also creates unintended consequences. In the future more people will make dumb decisions because they A) feel cheated to have had to bail out the person the last time this happened and B) I know if I can't afford it there is a good chance government will bail me out this time. Therefore the amount of people making bad decisions rises. This once shorterm problem is now gigantic and affects many million in the country. We are currently going through this in our present day economy. If no bailout in the first place... probably better decision making in the future by all people.

The other day there was two police chases that ended in car crashes in which people were severely injured and taken to the hospital. There was some news stations debating whether police should even pursue such thieves since they can result in other people being hurt on the highways due to these high speed chases. That is ridiculous on surface but lets look at the unintended consequences that could be caused by this. If a thief knows he or she will not be pursued after a hit and run or stealing a vehicle or committing some other crime then more theives will be willing to go into this practice as the chances of them getting away with it grows. What I would recommend is that if a person commits a crime like this they should take him or her out as soon as possible. yes there is a chance that the criminal might be hurt and possibly an innocent bystander although less likely than when the chase has reached well over a hundred mph. However if a criminal knows that within minutes of being pursued they are going to be taken out automatically.. they are probably going to be fewer criminals in the future taking those risks.

There are many many more examples that I have mentioned in past posts. I also recommend reading some of Thomas Sowell's writings on this. But remember costs are not just present. Costs of decisions made by politicians and individuals grow in the future if they create unintended consequences even if those consequences are unforeseen

I can get everyone a job that wants one... just read and find out

2009-07-09T13:08:00.000-07:00

Here is my recommendation for creating a job for every single American that wants a job. Actually I have several options. Congress should pass a law outlawing all machine use. That way to make up for what machines do, people will be needed. Here is another one. Lets just bring back the draft and draft everyone that does not have a job and force them to serve in the military whether they are all needed or not. Or better yet not to put them in danger (plus I'd rather many people who are jobless not to be in our wonderful military) we can simply have the government pay for people to do what my dad use to warn he would have me do if I was a smart-elic to my mother... We could pay people to dig holes and then re-fill them in.

You might think I'm an idiot but I'm really not. I'm just acting like the Obama administration. You say how? There are two ways government can get GDP to rise and thus create jobs according to basic economic text books. We can increase government spending or lower taxes. Now all your basic economic books will tell you that government spending will raise GDP faster than lowering taxes because a percentage of that tax break will be saved by the American individual getting the tax break thus not being used in our economy. This while every dollar of the government spending will be spent in the economy. There is only one problem...

How do we know if government is spending money on things that Americans want and need? Government might build a bridge and put hundreds to work but if that bridge is going to be used by 100 people a day and employ lets say 100 people to build, it might not be worth the cost of 200 million dollars to build that bridge. That means 2 million dollars was spent on each job. Is that really helping the economy other than those 100 people? Government can spend money and create "Green" jobs but if those jobs are not efficient jobs that help create "WEALTH" then it is a waste of resources.

Do you trust millions of Americans who know exactly what they need to improve their lives using their money the way they want to. Or do you trust some government official or "czar" spending that money on what he or she thinks the economy needs? A supermarket has 60,000 items in it that tens of millions of people had a part in getting there when you take into account every single job that is needed to get those items to the store. Do you think a government official could run our supermarkets? It would be impossible for one individual or a group of government officials to have all the information needed to do so.

I would much rather spend my own money!

The Do Nothing Approach

2009-07-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

With Americans lack of history knowledge and especially economic illiteracy, it is political suicide for an American President or Congressman to get elected on the promise of doing nothing. We believe that these representatives are suppose to vote and make laws that benefit their constituents. Yet their job is to abide by the Constitution and make laws that are the framework for our nation. Yet today over 60 percent of what congress does is unconstitutional. Doing nothing would be much better.

If Congress and the President did nothing we would not be having the current housing crisis. We would not have a massive debt that is held by foreign countries. We would not have billions spent on pork barrel projects. Lobbyist would be out of a job. Inflation would be much lower, housing would be cheaper with less regulation, credit wold be easier to get right now, and thus the stock market would be in better shape. With a do nothing congress taxes would be less than one half of what they are, a man could start a small business in one day not work on it for half a year and pay enormous costs to do so. Electricity and gas prices would be much lower because of the use of Nuclear Energy and the increased production of oil.

So why is it political suicide for politicians to go to office and promise all these things? The reason is simple but yet complex. Years of brainwashing in colleges and by politicians with the help of the media and more importantly the Judicial Branch has programmed our minds to be very dependent human beings. I was hanging out with some friends and one of them said "I can't wait to get my free health insurance." What he was saying is "ha ha ha your going to pay for my health insurance." He loves the fact that he does not have to pay for it. Wouldn't anyone? Yes unless that person understood what government healthcare is like in other countries and understands the economics about it and the fact that it is unconstitutional. These things take time to teach and in a school system ran by politicians and unions that would prefer us NOT to know these things, they do not get taught.

Its sad but it all goes back to the failure of our education system. Well failure to us not to the politicians and unions running our education system.

Is America Different?

2009-06-24T12:27:00.000-07:00

Remember the story about American Soldiers committing atrocities and torturing Iraqi Prisoners at Abu Ghraib? In fact right now go google "Abu Ghraib". The top link is Wikipedia report of abuse scandals. Everyone remembers it.

Interesting the historical word for atrocities and torture would usually relate to the gouging of eyes, ripping off of fingernails, whipping, acid baths, screw drivers into muscles, etc. The pictures of prisoners who were rescued from Japanese POW camps were weighing around 100 pounds while being disease infested and nearly starving to death. But these "atrocities" were soldiers making Iraqi prisoners get naked around each other in front of women (whom they are not to be naked around according to their religion). They were on dog leashes or simulated sexual acts. The worse things was being urinated on or maybe hit with a rifle in the groin. Are those from a historical standpoint considered atrocities? I would say not. Neither are they right or should their actions be condoned. But "Torture"? NO!

In other cultures prisoners are tortured to near death. The recently released Chinese "terrorist" that were released from Gitmo and sent to Bermuda talked about how much better they were treated in Cuba by Americans than they are their own government. In fact if they were sent back to China they would have surely been killed by their own government. Yet terrorist commit the most evil acts you can imagine and your hard pressed to find other Muslims condemning their acts. Don't get me wrong by no means am I saying that All Muslims are evil or terrorist. There are lots of great Muslim people. But where are the majority of them condemning their acts. Yet when Americans do things that are far from those extremes they are condemned by the U.S. media and politicians, and are usually put on trial and sentenced to punishment that is not justified when put into context.

These Iraqi terrorist have killed and tortured many of these soldiers fellow soldiers. Put yourself in their place and lets say your best friend was killed by them. Would you be tempted to embarrass and irritate many of the prisoners? Yes of course. Does it make it right to do? No. But in America we strongly condemn our few soldiers who commit these acts. But to call them atrocities or torture is just stupid. In fact the only truly stupid thing these soldiers did as Walter William once wrote was allow people to photograph their actions. That truly was stupid.

America is in fact different. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. I like that. But lets put into context our actions. We are a great country and different!

Different Regulations=same ole problems

2009-06-17T11:53:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration, just like any other great political administration, is taking proactive steps in fixing the financial system in our nation. To put in context, the economy is in a serious recession that began under the Bush administration and is continuing even through the stimulus era of increased government spending. I have already explained why I hate stimulus packages whether put together by Republicans or Democrats in past posts. But today the administration is going to fix the problems with more centralized regulation.

I have not read the full details but instead of having many different regulatory agencies, the federal reserve and the Treasury Secretary will have ultimate power on regulation. No more doubt on who has the power to punish people for making bad loans. Actually that sentence should be written "reward people for making bad loans and punishing those who do not." The reason being is that government regulators require a bank to make a certain amount of loans to people whom that political party or government official might want to make happy.

In reality we need less regulation and quite nearly none whatsoever. I take that back we need the most efficient regulation of all time. That being the regulation that the free market naturally puts on banks. If banks make bad risky loans to people who can not repay them, the government does not bail them out or help. The bank loses as well as the borrower. If government would stop forcing or pressuring financial institutions to make risky loans, and secondly stop giving them safety nets, then financial institutions will make decisions that would only benefit them. Which is- make good loans at affordable interest rates so they can compete with other loaning institutions while not making lots of risky loans to people who will not be able to repay them. Will fewer people be able to buy a house? The answer is yes. The percentage will lower by a couple at most few percentage points in the long run. The good news is you don't have a artificially inflated markets that causes inflation of home values and then a drop that bottoms out to a point where every persons property and house's value dissipates. Thus causing the entire economy to go into a recession of not depression.

Solution: Federal Government do only what the Constitution gives you authority to do. Meaning only about 35% of what you currently do. Furthermore, allow states to set whatever laws and regulations they want. I believe within a few years states that let the free market work will see its people and companies flourishing with prosperity. Then other states will follow suit and our entire nation will use the system that works best. Very light regulation, strong laws though, with free markets doing most of the regulation. Instead we have one giant fascist federal government making a mockery of the Constitution of the United States.

a country of ignorant people

2009-06-11T12:24:00.000-07:00

Liberals are brilliant to the point that they began to dismantle our traditional American heritage many decades ago. If a country of people are uneducated on economics and American history, they might believe anything. I tend to concentrate on economics in this blog.

It is hard for me to express my displeasure of the Obama administration's growth into our lives with the takeover of GM, the introduction of czars that will control aspects of the economy, and now the greater regulation of tobacco and the getting close to huge overhaul of our healthcare in America. The reason it is hard is that most Americans do not understand the bases of an argument because their knowledge of simple economics (in my opinion the most important school subject after basic English and Math) is so poor. How can I argue against well intended policies that sound good if the American people do not know the cost associated with the growth of government despite good intentions.

Pay Czar? Please read my past blogs about CEO pay. There you will learn why it is so dangerous to allow the government to manipulate the market pay of CEO's no matter how many millions they make when YOU don't think they are worth it.

I have also written past blogs about Healthcare and why free markets have worked so well there. I give examples of government healthcare in other nations as well.

Christians like the fact that government regulates some things. Tobacco use, prostitution, seat belts, helmets on bikes, etc... Many conservatives love those regulations too. I hate them. I don't think government should regulate parts of our lives that do not affect other people. I disagree with doing the many of the things that government outlaws. But giving it the right to prohibit or regulate the use thereof could give government the go ahead on other things. What if you went into a restaurant and ordered a dessert and the waiter said "I'm sorry but according to new government standards, you have already reached your calorie limit". You think that sounds crazy but they already outlawed different ways to make food at restaurants. McDonald's went away with the "Super Size" due to lawsuits, etc...

If government takes over healthcare you better believe to keep cost down they will prohibit your liberty to eat what you want when you want it and how much of it you can have.

Solution: More education with less government involvement = more economics without agenda. The more a person knows and understands economics, the less government they usually want. It hurts government to teach about economics. In other words government is smart to keep us dumb. Lets not let them keep doing it to us.

The Environment vs Human Life- Victory Environment

2009-05-18T16:57:00.000-07:00

Today the Environment just got another big victory over human life as the Obama administration has forced cars to get 42 mpg by 2016. Read this link to learn more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/wid=18298287

What most of us do not understand is that cost must be accounted for in any decision we make in life no matter how small a decision. The cost: To get cars that kind of gas mileage will cost businesses money to invest into technology that people do not want. This means less money spent on making cars that people want which means less cars being made and fewer jobs open to people in the car making business. Further, the cost of each car will go up as more money is needed to invest into research for this huge hike in gas mileage. Fewer people can afford a car and thus more jobs loss as demand for cars lessens now with the hike in price.

So Jess... what about lives being lost? What is the easiest way to make a car get better gas mileage? Its simple... make the car weigh less. Use more lighter materials and not the strong metals that make a car more sturdy and thus safer. More plastic that will crush more easily and lead to more deaths on the highway when accidents happen. It is a sad truth that in order for us to stop global warming in which many scientist doubt, and even more scientist who believe in global warming but believe the effects of it are far less harmful than what many environmentalist want us to believe, lives have to be ruined and worse- lost.

The Inside story of Outside the Lines

2009-05-12T18:08:00.001-07:00

I like the ESPN show "Outside The Lines". This past week they ran a good special on the Preakness (second biggest horse race of the year), held at PIMLICO track in Maryland. There was a part of this story though that bothered me that no one talks about. Remember when it was embarrassing for young girls and boys to talk about sex. Well it has so been justified that you are made fun of if you don't openly discuss it in eighth grade. Well the same is true for the size of government. Today when Outside the Lines does a special story about government takeover of private property no one blinks an eye.

PIMLICO is a privately owned race track that is not making money unless it is hosting that one race a year- The Preakness. The track is believed to be too big and out of date. There are now potential buyers of this track who want to buy it but use it for something else. Maybe something that makes money and provides a desired service to the area. However, the state of Maryland would not allow this to happen because of tradition. Somehow the memory of the Baltimore Colts leaving Maryland had an impact on the decision. So government should now have the right to take property because of tradition even if it is an out of business tradition? Traditionally Milk men brought milk to our houses. Should government not allow grocery stores to sell milk because of that tradition? Our founding fathers played the wonderful sport of Cricket. Should we not allow new sports like Baseball, football, and basketball to come about because people might find them more interesting than cricket?

Look it sounds small to most of you. Many of you might even agree with the decision. But if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people are not desiring to go watch horse racing at the track that hosts the Preakness, why should they be forced to pay for it simply because once a year that one race gets a lot of attention that the local government likes. It is sad that our government can do things that only communist and socialist governments did in the past while claiming that our economy is still built around capitalism. I'm tired of government ruling our lives I wish there were many millions of others that felt the same way.

Swine Flu Economics

2009-04-30T18:14:00.000-07:00

Today on my way to school I heard an interesting statistic. over 30,000 people die each year from the flu. Not this new hot exciting Swine flu thing but the normal flu. Up to this point one person has died of the swine flu. It brought me to a very important economic concept that I addressed with my classes today.

I believe I saw where the Obama administration is going to promise some $1.5 billion to fight this new flu "epidemic". Which brings up a very interesting rarely asked question: Where does this money come from? More importantly, what are the alternative cost of doing this? In other words what is not getting $1.5 billion because the government is spending it on this new hot issue? Economics is the efficient allocation of scare resources which have alternative uses. When resources are used in one area they are not in another. Is that $1.5 billion better used to fight this disease that is according to most experts somewhat contained and is not that serious yet? Or could it have been spent in a better place? What if it was used to do more research on cancer? Or what if it was to be used to build better and newer roads and bridges that are safer and save more lives than it will fighting Swine Flu.

In the early 1980's a small incident on a airport runway led to the death of an infant that was on the plane in his or her mom's lap. The small collision caused the baby to fly out of its mom's hands and was killed on impact. The government along with the airlines pledged to fix the problem and required special seats to be used for small children. This device saved one child every eight years according to a group of economist. But those same economist estimated that it killed 8 other people. You say how? The cost of this law or new policy was that the parent had to purchase an extra plane ticket. Instead they might not purchase it if they now think it is cheaper to drive instead. Now how many of those trips would result in wrecks and how many of those wrecks would result in casualties? Those economist estimated about 8 people died over the next eight years after the new policy was passed.

How many people could die because of some headline news story disease is getting politicians to move resources from important big problems that effect many people to try and fix this small problem that happens to be newsworthy. I'm not saying I disagree with the Obama decision I have not researched it. I am saying that we need to hesitate and think about these things before getting excited about trying to fix a problem. Remember there are cost and benefits to decisions not just benefits.

Wrongful Assumptions

2009-04-12T15:34:00.000-07:00

Today I attended Sweetwater area church service instead of traveling downtown Knoxville to attend my home church of Faith Promise. It got me to thinking so much that I still don't know the direction of this current post.

I would argue I have nothing against the church but I would be lying. I feel that so many of our churches are stuck in their old fashion ways that they are one of the main reasons we are losing our young people today. I looked around and can tell you that only one of the 6 ushers who took up the offering (and had to sit on the front row) kept their mind on the message. I know this because my mind was wondering around. Many of them were falling asleep or starring off in the distance. Many others in the church were doing the same. I bet many of them would condemn my church and yet they attend church and get nothing out of it. It got me to thinking how at my church I never see anyone falling asleep or even losing focus. Now in defense I rarely look around because I am so into the service as well. I love my church.

So many churches refuse to change and accomodate the current culture into their worship of an up-to-date, modern savior. They never even give adapting to the current environment a thought. They believe that good christians must where suits and preach messages that have three points that explain a specific verse of the Bible while singing music from the late 19th and early 20th century.

This along with a recent reading of my brother's blog got me to thinking about how Americans do the same with our government. The government wants to outlaw discrimination when private companies should have the right to do so if they choose. They are even sticking their noses in on MLB and now the BCS of college football. I believe I read where it was now up to 70 percent. You say what Jess? 70 percent of what our federal government does is not found anywhere in the Constitution. If 75% of our congress wants the federal government to participate in this action then ammend the Constitution first.

American citizens have allowed the government to get so large for so long that they don't even think about changing its ways. We never stop and think about whether this is the best course of action or whether government should even be involved to begin with. Maybe Christian and Americans alike should take a step back and begin evaluating the church and government's mission before choosing a path and not giving it a second thought.

When the Obvious is wrong

2009-03-21T19:40:00.001-07:00

This blog is hard to post because about 90% of my readers (probably mostly conservative) will disagree with it. But with all due respect who are YOU to decide what is "fair" for company executives to be paid?

It angers me when all I hear is how people are so mad that AIG executives are getting huge bonuses when they in fact are one of the big reasons our economy is in the dump. I agree that they made some terrible mistakes and that their management should be punished. But let the owners of the company (stockholders) make those decisions. First for you who are reading this blog and have not read many of my past postings, you must read my blogs on CEO pay from many many months ago. With that in context, executives of the largest companies in the world make millions for a reason and so they should if the market calls for it. At the same time, contracts for these executives are sometimes considered "unfair" because to get these highly coveted executives requires huge payments or they will miss out on the best available leaders for the company. Keep in mind that sometimes bonuses are due regardless of a companies success in a given year.

Most importantly, if Government did not bail out these companies every time they made bad decisions, these companies would not reward executives who made terrible business decisions. But if the American federal government is going to give them our tax dollars, why should they not partially use that money to pad their own pockets when knowing that they soon are going to be let go? The solution- government stay out and let these businesses fail and if enough fail, stockholders might decide to pay closer attention to decisions being made and thus executives will not make stupid decisions that put their companies in trouble.

The reason it angers me is that politicians know how stupid we are and will cater to our feelings of anger towards executives and demand instead that they not get those bonuses. We then get excited because those politicians hear our complaints and are working so hard for us! The only problem is that the real PROBLEM is not being solved. That is, government stop standing by these companies and stop bailing them out and these over paid bonuses will not happen. Our attention is turned to the emotional issues of millions of dollars being paid to executives when it is the billions and eventually trillions of dollars that the government will spend to "fix" this economy when they are responsible in fact for causing the problems that needs to be fixed!

The other issues can not be explained so easily. But if you read my blogs from time to time you will know that economics is about costs and benefits. And even if you were to agree that government has gotten this one right and that these executives should not be allowed to receive these bonuses, there is a cost to government making those decisions. If government makes that decision why not other decisions? WHat about healthcare? What jobs are to be created? Prices of goods? That sounds like Socialism. Look at the countries that are socialistic. Is that what you want to live like? The cost of capitalism is that sometimes the free market might get it wrong. But the benefit of Capitalism and Free Markets is that it gets it right far more times than government does.

History of Prayer

2009-03-01T09:56:00.000-08:00

It is amazing to me when I step back and study the surface of history about how much our forefathers and ancestors used prayer during some of the most important times of our nation's history. George Washington would not have become our first President nor a president at all if he had not survived the escape from New York to Trenton, New Jersey at the beginning of the American Revolution. He thanked God for a so called "Wind Miracle" that he prayed about for allowing this to take place.

When our Constitution was being developed in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin asked for everyone to take some time to pray at the convention when it looked like it might collapse. This was not a short pre-meal like prayer but a few days of prayer and worship. He said "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."

Just before the single largest ground invasion in our nation's history on foreign soil, Franklin Roosevelt prayed in his radio address for the brave men who were about to land on the beaches of Normandy.

Today in our time of Economic turmoil, our President does not call upon our nation to pray. There are no radio addresses or speeches made in congress to take a few days of prayer for our nation and its leader. There is only call for government to do more to help our economy although it is that same government that has screwed up our economy with bailouts and laws that have promoted and incentivize banks to make bad loans to people who can not pay them back. Instead how about the Church rising and praying that our leaders will get some backbone to stop growing government and instead allow the market(the decisions of thousands of companies and millions of consumers) to put financial institutions out of business who make bad decisions. Stop protecting companies and banks so that they are willing to risk failure knowing that government will help them and then one day they all collapse at once taking us into an economic recession such as we have now that could lead to near depression valleys. I personally do not believe we will see a great depression again because the Great Depression was based on the lively hood of so many people during that time. We are so blessed today with great things that even during the worst of times, people have luxuries that could never be considered depressing.

I'm asking our President Barack Obama to call upon our nation to pray and stop telling me about how the same entity that has nearly destroyed our prosperous economy is going to now fix it. Lets pray that we elect politicians that will stop passing laws in order to impress voters but do things that help our nation in the long run even if it does nothing to get them re-elected in the short run.

Government smarter than 300 million people???

2009-02-14T09:49:00.000-08:00

When analyzing what our Constitution tells our government to do and thinking about what our government really does there is only one conclusion that a person can come up with. Government officials in Washington, including the over 500 congressmen, President, V.P., and all the President's staff, believe they are smarter than 300 million Americans in this country. They propose stimulus packages that are suppose to "create jobs". Except these jobs are being created where these officials feel they should be created not where the free market (the spending of over 300 million Americans) believe they should be created. Lets look at this.

Do you think if instead of $800 billion being spent on all the different programs the Obama administration have laid out was given to the American people, that we would spend that money on the same things these government officials have proposed? Do you think we would have spent that money on STD prevention programs, Honey Bee Insurance, Safe Sex for Gays, Buildings being upgraded, etc...

Government is suppose to work for us not the other way around. I for one believe that government needs to stay out of the economy and stop inflating credit so that people who do not deserve homes buy homes, buy homes that are too expensive for them, and then when interest rates rise, they lose their homes, home prices fall in the area, and credit tightens, banks fail, etc... Where if bad loans had not been loaned in the first place this episode would never have happened. Government caused this mess and now they believe they are entitled to fix it?? Makes a lot of sense... NOT! Lets cut our losses, lower government spending, let the market correct (meaning home prices adjust cheaper than they are because they went up too high to begin with) and then not make this mistake again. The recession will end just as fast that way as it will with government simply transferring funds from the American people to areas they believe this money should be spent in order to "stimulate" the economy. The American people will have to pay more for goods due to inflation after this money is put into our economy. Thus either way you look at it, we are paying for this 800 billion. Not to mention when we have to pay off our debt eventually. It makes me sick to believe that our government is doing what Communist Russia did when it could not even feed their own people.

Switch in Power

2009-01-18T08:59:00.001-08:00

Due to basketball coaching and history teaching, I have had far less time to consider writing on my blog. But now that we are just a couple days away from a new President I figure its about time now.

The sad thing is that the American people have voted for a man who will continue so many of the policies that President Bush pushed for. More government spending on socialized medicine, more spending on education, just simply more government. That is why I find it humerous that everyone thinks change is about to happen. President Bush passed a stimulus package, he has made government bigger and quicker than most other presidents, and now Obama will simply continue that. Funny how people get really excited about "change" when I see very little coming..

Actually I do see some change coming. Funny thing is that it is in the area in which George Bush was best and that is fighting terrorism. Our nations reputation around the world is tarnished because we have a President that said enough is enough, your either for us or your for the terrorist. He meant what he said for the most part. His actions has kept another terrorist attack from happening on our homeland and has greatly reduced the capability of one of the most dangerous terrorist groups ever- Al Queda. Many terrorist plots have been foiled and most experts are amazed that we have not been attacked since. I would hope that when Obama gets in office and sees this that he will not drastically back off of the Bush foreign policy.

Funny thing about it, I think we will change his views a bit. Once he gets in that position and speaks to our security agencies and military, I think he will continue our foreign policy for the most part. I mean seriously, its a principle we learn early on in our lives- You don't try to fix what is not broken.

Why History

2009-01-07T09:43:00.000-08:00

Just two days off of Christmas Break and I was almost in a rage at school. It was not as bad as that sounds but something was said that made me angry. I was not mad at a particular student although it was a particular student who said it(one of my good students too). We were discussing life on the frontier for a cowboy when this student spoke up about how he or she will never use this in their life. That is something almost every student says at one point in their life I'm sure I have in fact. But it struck a core with me. Schools today can not force a child to salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance. Many kids today do not care about their country beyond what it does for themselves. Learning history is about having a respect for what has happened to create the country that allows you to live freely and prosper. For that we all use history every day of our lives. So many kids today are being raised to love themselves and what this country can do for them and not what they can do for this country. For that I'm sorry and I'm worried.

The Goodness of Pain

2008-12-18T15:54:00.000-08:00

In our 24-7 media world where politicians attempting to get votes can gain access to the public at will, common sense approaches are sometimes lost for everyday problems. Politicians are always trying to win over a vote or two with their new big plan to fix our economy. Good pro-Capitalist economists (the only ones that are good) make lousy politicians because the truth is not fancy and not attractive to voters unless those voters understand history and economics. Since our public has inadequate knowledge of both those subjects, economist usually waste no time pursuing politics.

The fact is, good economics would allow the auto industry to go bankrupt like the free market has desired it to do. The free market says that some auto makers make us vehicles we like and others do not. Those who make what we want and do it efficiently are making money and not close to going under. Those who have made bad decisions are close to going out of business. There is nothing wrong with that. Politicians argue that our economy could not handle that happening right now. What about the milk man that use to deliver milk? What about the man that use to deliver large blocks of ice to your house? What about the majority of the population that use to be farmers? Should we have saved all of their jobs when grocery stores seemed more efficient? What about when ice makers were put in refrigerators and freezers? Or when capital was created to farm quicker and more efficiently, should we have stopped that from happening so that all those farmers could have kept their jobs of working on the farm for 14 hours a day?

It seems scary to think of such a large sector of our economy going out of business. It seems scary to me to think of life without refrigerators, ice-makers, machinery to do farming, and grocery stores with tons of food at pretty cheap prices!

Hamilton, Fulmer, Politics

2008-11-30T08:38:00.000-08:00

By reading the title of this entry your probably shaking your head, tensing your eyebrowns, or doing the one eyebrow raise. Or at least that is what I do when I see something that does not make sense. This year's tennessee football season explains in a way what Alexander Hamilton said about our government many years ago as one of our founding fathers.

This year I think Philip Fulmer was asked to resign due to emotions. Is it true that recently he has struggled to win as often as we use to? Yes. Is it true that the SEC is tougher this year than it use to be? Yes as well. Is it true that last year Florida lost 5 games, just two less than Tennessee this year? Yes. I do not think that Athletic Director Hamilton wanted to fire Fulmer. I think the fans emotional spills at Neyland Stadium and in the Blogs forced him to make a change. The emotions of the fans impacted him too much in other words. That does not take away the blame I put on Hamilton, but it does show the problem with the masses making so many decisions.

Alexander hamilton said he was afraid of true democracy because of the emotional swings of the public that would cause them to make bad decisions. He was against having a monarchy as well, but wanted safety clauses in our government not to only protect from the rise of kings, but the rise of pure democracy. I think it is interesting in that I believe the masses made the decision on Fulmer. Today many of those fans are regretting it because they learned that Fulmer is one of the most loved coaches in the nation, and how well or team could have been with a quarterback. Yes there were many other problems. I'm not blind and know a good deal about football. But with a quarterback, other things fall into place. Without the fans emotions changing so much, Fulmer stays, changes the offense back to something his players can adapt to, and they probably win 10 games next season with so many returning players, including the best running back we have had since Travis Henry - Lennon Creer.

Fulmer will be missed. Lets learn from this emotional decision, how you NEVER EVER VOTE or make a decision based on EMOTIONS.

Just a thought...

2008-11-27T15:36:00.001-08:00

I would love to hear people's opinion who read my articles from time to time. On this subject particularly.

The idea that I will interest you in is restrictions on voters. Restrictions on who can vote that is. Alexander Hamilton had if not the most influence on our founding, the second most aside from James Madison. He said that he feared the ignorance of citizens and their tendency to allow their emotions to fluctuate when making decisions. It is this reason that he was not a big fan of the Virginia Plan (the plan eventually chosen as our government with a compromise included) that was written by James Madison as a proposal for our national government. He feared democracy. He was not in favor of an aristocracy or monarchy, but he was against pure democracy. He did favor representative government to keep the voter out of most all decisions other than who would be those representatives. And even with that there were restrictions on who could vote for representatives.

Originally only land owning non-slave men could vote in elections. Women, Slaves, and those who did not own land could not vote. My question is should we re-think this idea of allowing all people to vote? I'm not talking about restricting based on race or gender. But should we only allow those who have worked a certain amount of weeks over the past 2 years to vote? What about those on Welfare? Should someone that has to live off of worker's taxes be allowed to vote? Should a homeless man who has not worked in 2 years have his vote count the same as a business man who has created jobs for hundreds or thousands of people like Bill Gates? If over half the country does not pay taxes, are they not more likely to vote for a candidate that says : "I will have the rich pay their fair share (meaning all the taxes while you pay none unless you get a better job and make more money) so that you will not have to pay any taxes." Even if the candidate is not close to being qualified, if half the electorate are non-tax payers, do they not have an emotional incentive to vote for the unqualified candidate simply because he guarantees that they will never have to pay taxes?

I only bring this up not as a radical who wants to only have rich people vote. I'm simply explaining some of the thoughts of our founding fathers and just maybe, despite them being wrong on many things such as slavery and woman's role, were they right on this one? Should all Americans be able to vote? I personally think not. I believe our electorate is so dumb that their decisions are the wrong ones in many cases. Our founding fathers did not vote to have a democracy. They voted and signed a document to protect us from both the rise of kings and the rise of ignorant democracy. Both they feared, and both equally feared.

What say you?

Are we better off today?

2008-11-15T11:56:00.000-08:00

Recently on another blog I had a somewhat heated debate about the well-being of people in America today. He wanted to argue that since the Reagan revolution, the poor have become worse off and the well to do have become better off. One arguement I used was that wealth is a better judgement than yearly income for a number of reason. Lets look at some facts that were reached by economists Michael Cox and Richard Alm at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas.

They did a study on income and spending differences of different income brackets. When taking statistics based on income only, retirement payments, investment pay outs, savings withdraws, capital sells such as homes and cares, and many other variables are not taken into consideration. These economist show that since 1975 the percentage of national income of the top 20 percent of income earners income rose from 43.6 to 49.6 percent while that of the lowest 20 percent, at $10,000, fell from 4.3 to 3.3 percent. Thus it appears that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But lets take a closer look. Income is not a determinate of wealth. In fact Cox and Alm found that While the lowest fifth averages $10,000 in income, they spend almost twice that amount. The highest fifth averages $150,000 and spends about $70,000, the rest goes to taxes and savings. The middle fifth averages $45,000 and spends about $35,000. While there's a large income gap of 15 to 1 between the top fifth and lowest fifth, the spending gap pales in comparison. (Walter Williams article 04/02/08). Due to other areas of income, not just wages, statistics can be deceiving when not considering thos other areas of income.

These statistics are also for household. Keep this in mind as well... high-income households have more people living in those households due to averaging 3.1 people in the top fifth income brackett. This compared to 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. This means that the income gap per person in the house hold closes between those in the higher brackett and those in the lower brackets.

So let me conclude with looking at the wealth of these people which will allow us to look at the effects of the other areas of income and the drop in "real prices". Walter Williams states that "years ago, a worker earning the average wage had to work 365 hours to purchase a VCR; today it's two hours. A cell phone dropped from 456 hours of work in 1984 to four hours today. A personal computer, with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours of work to 25 hours." He continues "Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cell phones have reached more than 80 percent of households."

The fact is wealth has increased due to our capitalistic ways while some politicians and economist with an agenda might hide some variables out of their statistics and thus a true reading or description of our well-doing is mis-leading. Keep this in mind the next time someone wants to tell you that life is getting worse not better for those who are not the so called "rich" in America.

What does it mean?

2008-11-04T18:30:00.000-08:00

This has been a rough week for myself. The "firing" of my coach Phil Fulmer, tough week in basketball practice, and now yes the worse news of all... the American people have decided that socialism is the way to go.

So what does it mean? It means very simply that the teacher unions, Department of Education, Our college universities, and media have been victorious in polluting a generation of minds to think very liberal like. Our founding fathers feared democracy because they were not sure that a population could be educated enough on the facts to make good decisions. That is why we have a republic and not a pure democracy. This election was partially about Republican vs. Democrat. Republicans have lost their way. They have very few conservative voices of reason that can express their ideas with ease and excitement. Fred Thompson proved that. The most conservative of all of them couldn't say a sentence without clearing his throat. We need some Barack Obama type figures in the party that can express themselves in a persuasive manner. Obama is a socialist on the verge of Marxism. Some possible candidates in the future- Bobby Jindal, Bob Portman, Jess Raby.... ok just kidding.

It is sad that President Bush did not stick by his values and take his views to the American people. He should have warned us about what happens when government forces and pressures companies into making loans to people who could not pay them back. He should have cut out wasteful spending, not passed the largest welfare package of prescription drug benefits, or passed one of the largest transfers of education power to the federal government in history with "No Child Left Behind."

So what now? Sadly enough, we have to allow Barack Obama screw things up so bad with socialist like policies that have hurt Democrats in the past like Roosevelt and Carter. Republicans then have to come back in with pro-market and pro-freedom ideas. I hope that they do not think this was a sign that they must become more like Democrats. If they do, which I'm afraid they might, then we can kiss our prosperity goodbye within about 20 years. Remember the only reason socialist countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and most eastern European nations can have such prosperous lives (although not as nice as ours) is because America produces so many things that they use, that they would not produce themselves very efficiently if we did not. Things like medicine. America gets alot from other nations, but only because we have a comparative advantage in trading with them. European nations simply do not produce a lot because of their backward economies. Keep in mind also that it is the American military that is paid for by our tax dollars, which are generated due to our GDP and growth of wealth that protect our world from evil. If we spent all our military money on welfare policies like those countries do, we too could survive for a time. That is until evil attacks. With those countries, if evil attacked them, they know we would come to help.

Our nation's voters have turned to liberalism, socialism, and now close to Marxism. Can we turn it back? I don't know. The facts are on our side if we could get some educated people to show this. John McCain, George Bush??? Are you kidding me? We need to choose leaders that gave a clue of how to express those ideas. I hope we get them in 4 years before its way too late!

PRICES Part two

2008-10-22T18:13:00.000-07:00

It is important to understand that prices determine of how much of something will be bought and how much of it will be produced. In other words price effects supply and demand. The higher the price, the more of that good a producer wants to make because they can sell it for that high price and make a profit off of it. This also makes consumers demand less of it, thus preserving the good that has been produced for the people who want or need it the most.

Gas prices demonstrate this in an extroardinary way. Oil is sold on a world market and thus prices are set for oil based on the demand and supply of the world. The more the world demands something the higher the price will go. This is a good thing. The reason for it is that while prices rise, producers will make more to try and make that extra profit. When the supply then rises, prices will come back down. The other benefit is that when prices originally rise, people buy less and thus those who need it the most will have more available for them. Recently prices of gas have fallen quickly. After the recent hurricane, supply of gas was hurt because some of our refineries in Texas were disturbed by the hurricane. If the government stays out, prices will rise quickly enough so that only those who need the gas will buy it. I myself chose not to take a casual trip to Chattanooga because it would have cost me a dollar more per gallon. But prices rising in a time when supply is low or tight, is not such a bad thing. The man or woman who had to go to work on Saturday and Sunday and needed gas, would not have to worry about finding gas for sell. Some gas stations ran out of gas. If they had been free to and had raised their prices to what the price needed to be to curve demand, then they would not have ran out of gas to sell.

Recently the refineries are up and running at top speed and prices have fallen back down very quickly. We have also seen the economy sliding but not only here at home but world wide. This means that speculators or investors who buy oil on the world market expect demand to to be lower in the future. So they have bid the price of oil down because people are not going to be buying it as much nor will world economies be using as much gas to operate. Thus oil prices dropped. Within a few weeks that oil that is bought for cheap, gets refined into gas and when that gas gets to the gas station is is sold there for less than the older gas and thus gas stations can lower their prices. This is why prices have dropped so much. At the same time of our refining capacity getting back to normal, world demand for oil has dropped and thus prices drop considerably.

Some people complain about the profits of oil companies. Remember their profit per dollar of gas sold is less than $.10. This is a very low profit margin. It is a good thing that these companies make a lot of money because that means they can expand their company and produce more oil and supply will rise and thus prices will eventually go back down. The only problem is that our government currently restricts this from happening because liberals are held by the grip of extreme environmentalists. That means when the economy starts to grow again, prices for gas will rise again. We can keeps this from happening as quickly and as high, if we start drilling now. I'm afraid we won't though.

What really caused this serious Financial Crisis

2008-10-21T16:14:00.000-07:00

I have attempted to write about the housing crisis on my blog. It is a really complicated issue that when reading about, unless you have some good economic background might be hard to understand. This video helps out tramendously. It is 10 minutes long. Which is long for many of you probably. It will be worth it and it makes lots of sense. Please read and share with friends if you would please....

444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id="JibJabPlayer" width="440" height="370" align="middle">

Burning Down the House - Our Economic Crisis | Funny Jokes at JibJab

Powell endorses McCain

2008-10-19T17:13:00.000-07:00

I'm sure the mainstream media will run this for at least three days even if there is another terrorist attack. "Former Bush Secretary of State and fellow Republican, surprisingly endorses the monumental figure Obama!" Lets put this in perspective.

Powell has never been a true conservative and thus this should be of no surprise. In fact as Secretary of State, Bush was probably trying to be non-partisan with the appointment. When Powell and former First head of Homeland Security- Tom Ridge were both rumored to be possible V.P. picks, conservatives hammered McCain into not picking them. Powell is pro-choice and has not been extremely supportive of Bush since he has left his position as Secretary of State. He has always leaned a little left which means he is more of an internationalist and not a nationalist like conservatives are. That is why he cited his belief that Obama will bring back some of our reputation from the other countries of the world. Don't get me wrong I wish other nations loved me too. But most nations loved Chamberlain when he waved the letter from Hitler back before WWII because they did not want war. But in the end it was the aggressive Churchill that saved Western Civilization. I don't want other countries to like me if it risks my existence or strength in the world. I could care less about the majority. Hitler had the majority of support before he killed millions of Jews.

Powell is a republican in name only. He is also Black. There are Black Republicans such as the conservative writer, John McWhorter who are favoring Obama because of the history. It should not be a huge surprise that Powell has done this. He was also not picked to be the Veep for McCain, so he might have some animosity towards him. The fact is, this does not mean a thing, but the media will make it a huge story!

Part 2 on prices coming soon

PRICES Part one

2008-10-17T07:52:00.000-07:00

One of the toughest classes I had (at my surprise) in college was The History of Economic Theory. The thing that was toughest to understand was the history of setting prices on goods. How to come up or set a price for a good has been debated and studied for centuries especially since the 1700's when the study of economics really began with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations book came out. Smith is considered the "Father of Capitalism" some call him the "Father of Economics". I am now going to do the best I can to explain why prices are set the way they are today and answer some recent questions and complaints from friends of mine who do not understand why gas prices have fluctuated so much lately and is there manipulation going on.

Should prices be set just above cost? This way the producer will make just a little profit to pay him for his work and pay him enough to cover his cost. Should prices be set exactly at cost? Should government set prices? Should government subsidize or help pay for important goods so that consumers or citizens can pay less for a good they need since the government is helping pay for part of it? All interesting questions but they are the wrong questions. The question should be: In relation to setting prices what is the most efficient way to get goods produced, allocated or spread throughout the economy, and bought by customers to satisfy their needs and want. In other words: Supply and Demand. I find the theory of Supply and Demand one of the most interesting concepts in the world. I know I must be a geek but so be it. In a true free market (which has shown to be the most efficient way of allocating resources) prices are set wherever producers want to put them..... but not exactly. What do you mean Jess "but not exactly"? Consumers can buy products at whatever price they want to by telling the producer "NO" by not buying their good at that current price. In a free market there is competition and only very very few technical monopolies and thus competition will allow consumers to have the most power in the economy not the producer. This is because there are far more of them! So the consumer can not be taken advantage of in a true free market.

Producers want to make as much as they can but if they charge too much they will not have buyers and thus go out of business. This is why Wal-mart has been so successful in selling for cheap and thus other businesses that charge more are put out of business. Not by Wal-mart. But put out of business by US the consumer who chooses to buy from Wal-Mart instead of them. Prices thus are set by a market of producers (the suppliers) and consumers (the demanders). Now lets apply this to prices in our economy.

Economist that think like I do, do not care about how much it cost to make something and thus producers should make a little profit to pay them for their services. They care about what people are demanding, thus what needs to be produced, and the price can determine both of these things. How? The higher the price the more suppliers will make of that good because they can make a lot of money. Plus that higher price serves another great function. It curves demand for that good. In other words, if the price is high, because there is a lot of demand for it, you will buy less of it because at a high price you will only buy what you need, not necessarily what you want. The good news is that because of this action, there is more of the good to go around to ALL people that need it. Back to that first good thing. The higher the price the more that good will be produced. This means what people demand the most will be made the most and quickest so that consumers can get it and producers can make a buck. Or in this case, a lot of bucks. But in the long term, that means the supply will rise, and eventually over take demand, and thus producers will lower prices to sell off their extra supply. This is why goods that are made are expensive at first (video games, new types of technology like computers and cars, medicine, etc...) and then later the price falls. Then a new, better technology comes out, the price of the older technology falls even more, but the new goods price is high, and the same thing happens all over again.

In the next posts I will explain why this is good, and its effects on gas prices, and why so many Americans complain about price gougers, and manipulation and so forth.

Barack Obama's Friends

2008-10-16T20:17:00.000-07:00

If your not dead or hate your country to a point that you don't pay a bit attention to our government, then you have probably been hearing a lot about Obama's connection to the Great American William Ayers, The Community Organization of Acorn, and of course this brings back up one of America's great Evangelicals The Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Ok so Ayers is a terrorist and Wright is a racist, anti-American, Socialist so they are not great people. For you who do not keep up with it closely lets talk about these organizations, people, and the significance of it to the Presidency.

William Ayers was a leader and in fact co-founder of the Weather Underground which was a group of people who became domestic Terrorist and blew things up. Ayers and Obama met early on in his political career about Education reform. Ayers believes that our education system needs to be reformed in a way that students are taught about the evils of Capitalism (which made our nation rich), and to radicalize their thinking to change everything about America. Ayers is a Marxist. Obama met with him about education reform but also to jump start his political career! Ayers is from Illinois and has donated to his election bids early on in his career. Both of them have also served on anti-poverty boards together. This should be a problem for Obama as Ayers is against everything that has made our country so rich and has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history. Ayers is a believer in Communism. Obama has some tendencies to agree with those principles as well. He was a marxist early on in his career. For you who don't know what I mean by marxist, Karl Marx is considered the "father of communism". This is scary to anyone that knows the smallest amount about economics!

Acorn is a community organization that specializes in getting poor and minority families in homes and helps get people registered to vote. Since they deal with mostly inner-city, poor families, this would mean they register likely liberal democrats to vote. They have been known to participate in voter fraud as well. I will not dive into that part of their association that much. But they are a group that also lobbies congressmen to be tough on banks to make loans to poor people. They are a group that supports laws like the Community Reinvestment Act that I mentioned in a past blog, which was the first of government interference in the free market of housing, which has led to this so called "crisis" we have today. The Free market did not cause this, government interference by creating laws that forced banks to make bad loans did. Obama has worked with them closely before. They too are a very radical leftist organization.

These associations bring up other past associations that Obama has had, particularly with his Pastor-Jeremiah Wright. This should not be a surprise to most of you. Obama is a leftist and is one of the most liberal politicians in the country. In fact he is historically a radical leftist himself and only appears slightly more moderate than people like Ayers because he is a great politician. These are important issues that McCain should have been hammering on long ago. But he has to do it in the right way. Don't just attack Obama because he was friendly with an unrepentant terrorist. Explain that his association with him was over his political career, especially in the field of education reform. Then explain the kind of reform that Ayers and thus Obama really want. Obama can't claim that he wants these extreme changes but if McCain makes the obvious connection, he can explain what Obama really wants. Then explain in a savvy fashion the housing crisis and how bad laws led to this. Then explain that as President, these laws would be eliminated and this housing crisis would never happen again.

If McCain does this and hammers it home, he still has a chance to be elected President. He has a lot of things working against him. Obama is a better politician than him, the mainstream media is supportive of Obama, Young people are so perverted in their education about economics and history that they are too ignorant to know better until they are older and enter the real world (this is why so many switch from Democrats to Republicans within ten years upon graduation). Young people are beginning to vote now, this helps Obama. But McCain can hammer this home, demand interviews, show passion, and explain how radical Obama and his friends are. Explain that our founding fathers and even the beloved Democrat- Franklin Roosevelt would never associate with Obama themselves. Our founders would not have allowed him to even participate in the developement of our great nation even. I doubt he will do this. But I'm praying he does!

Why I am so Angry!

2008-10-13T12:00:00.001-07:00

"We need to punish those "greedy" Ceo's at those financial institutions!" "Down with Greed! and the high salaries of CEO's!" "To %$*@ with those rotten, rich, greedy Sons of $&#*$&@!" Ok the last couple phrases are used on far left websites but that is not what has me angry. It is hearing Bill O'reilly, Political Analyst Dick Morris, and of course Presidential Candidate John McCain condemning the same people. Let me put in perspective what they are saying in essence. "I have the knowledge and understanding of this 13 trillion dollar economy to know exactly what you should be paid for being the CEO of a massive financial institution." "I know better and by God you do not deserve what you are getting paid!" How conceded can someone be to believe they truly know this information. The problem I have recently is that it is conservatives like the men I mentioned above doing the complaining. Why are they complaining? Because it makes the American Ignorant Citizen feel good that someone is fussing at those rich Entrepreneurs!

Put yourself in this situation. Your boss tells you that you can come to work late, make bad decisions, and not work that hard and you will still make your current salary and keep your job. Or you are a manager of a specific branch of a very large company and the head of that company comes to you and says whatever decisions you make, if you win that is great, if you lose money in the decision, don't worry we will give your branch the profits from other branches to offset it. Oh by the way your job is guaranteed. How would you work? Would you work extra hard? Would you think twice before making decisions? No. Well that is what the government has done. It has guaranteed bailouts for companies that make bad decisions on loans. That means you win whether those loans are paid back or not. Thus there is no risk in decision making and no cost in making the wrong decision. How can you blame a CEO from running a company that gives loans to almost anyone when that is the guarantee? I would do it that way. Besides, these politicians that are calling these guys names are the same politicians that have pressured those CEO's and institutions into giving risky loans to risky borrowers for the sake of "Social Reconstruction." Don't get me started on the laws that do this for the sake of helping the needy, poor, minority, and other people who would not get a loan in a true free market.

In recent blogs I have covered the reasons for so many bad loans being made. I will not explain all that over again there. It is the fact that so many people are so mad at the wrong people that has me so angry! It shows the ignorance of economics and the current situation that has me so angry.

These Greedy people are loved when those companies make a lot of money and employ tons of people and allow millions of people to have loans at great rates. But when times get hard we hate them. If your wondering if these CEO's deserve this much money then go back and read my columns on "Why CEO's Make So Much Money." I think it is a three part series and it will help you understand. If the market calls for millions to be paid and these Multi-Billion dollar institutions need someone that makes multi-billion dollar decisions it might be worth paying them multi-millions to get a good CEO. Even if there is a risk in doing so. Most of my readers are athletes and probably like the Tennessee Vols. If Coach Fulmer was to be replaced do you think a proven Coordinator looking for a head coaching position would take the job if Athletic Director Hamilton said if you win 10 games we will pay you 2 million and give you an extension. If you win 9 or less then you have not done what we want and thus you will be paid nothing. Would anyone take that job that was a pretty good coach? No! For one, there would be far better offers somewhere else. The risk of no pay would not be worth it. Thus you have to guarantee these guys some money. Besides, if every CEO in the world gave back all their salaries to help pay for the losses the economy during this housing and financial crisis, it would pay for less than 1% of it. SO POLITICIANS, TAKE CARE OF THE OTHER 99% OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THE 1% YOU GREEDY POLITICAL MORONS!

If you were mad or are still mad about the current situation and blame it on the free market and the lack of regulation please comment on this blog entry. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Good News with Economy

2008-10-09T16:45:00.000-07:00

LOL I kind of laugh reading my own title. The Dow is below 9000 for the first time in years! Unemployment is believed to rise a few more tenths to around 6.3 percent which is getting kind of high for America. And no one can get credit and yet I say there is good news. Well there is. Despite our government causing the current economic turmoil with terrible laws beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1970's, I believe there are a couple good things to point out here.

Oil is down to below 85 dollars a barrel for the first time in a long time. This means that unless something happens, gas will be........... close to $2.50 by December. That is given the current global situation does not change, and there are no natural disasters that cause disruption in the supply of oil. So folks, expect to spend less on travel soon.

Secondly, the stock market has officially dropped some 20% which is a "correction" by definition. This means that there is a chance that the markets have bottomed out or are at least close to doing so. So get ready to reinvest. Warren Buffet is about to buy up a lot, you should too.

Don't get me wrong the next President will have low ratings. It might be a good thing for Obama to get elected. If he does what he says he will then he will cause this problem to be a lot worse like Roosevelt did. But maybe that means we won't have to put up with Democrats but for 4 years and then Rudy Guiliani or Bob Portman, or better yet, Bobby Jindel will run for President and this crap will turn around just in time for a true conservative to get elected. Bobby Jindel would be my man!

Bailouts affect on oil prices

2008-09-23T17:29:00.000-07:00

The recent bailout that I talked about in the last blog has done something that many people probably did not expect. I have discussed in my classroom and on this blog the issue with gas prices. There are many reasons that gas prices are so high. One of those reasons is the value of the American Dollar. When the American Dollar is weak, the prices of commodity items rises. When we buy something that is on the world market, the value of our dollar compared to other countries can effect the price to us. Thus commodity prices change. Commodities such as OIL.

The value of the dollar has risen lately and has helped contribute to the lowering of gas prices. Oil has dropped nearly $50 in the last couple months. Then just after this weekend the price jumped some $20 almost. Why? The value of the dollar. Now why did the value of the dollar go down so quickly? Our wonderful governments bailout of our financial markets. Thankyou Washington!! When the government bails a company out, they must get the money from somewhere. It is not in the already large government budget. SO they must either print the money or they must borrow it from other countries. Either way it adds money to our economy that would otherwise not be there. When money is added to the economy, the value of each dollar drops. Thus the price of commodities begin rise. Thankyou, Washington.

Bailouts!

2008-09-21T15:06:00.000-07:00

There is little that I hate more than a Bailout. I hate it when a referee bails a player out. When Chris Leak throws an interception at the end of the first half of the 2006 gator at vols football game, a referee should not call a roughing the passer call when there is very little contact on the pass. That play was a difference in the game. The same is true when government interferes with the market and bails a company out. Lets discuss the recent financial institution bailouts.

When Fannie Mae was created in 1938 and then Freddie Mac later, the purpose was to ensure that people who wanted loans could more easily get them. Fannie Mae was started during the Great Depression, which was caused by stupid government policy, and Freddie Mac was created because of what Wayne Winegarden calls "Corporate Social Responsibility" being combined with a for-profit business model. Government has a reason to make people happy and thus creates institutions to help them- "Corporate Social Responsibility." But does this in a market that is best ran by using for-profit businesses model that is now being interfered with. This interference in the economy creates unexpected consequences.

These government created and backed companies will buy up mortgages and loans from other institutions taking the risk off of them. This allows for more mortgages at lower interest rates from those intuitions. The issue is in the incentives created by these government institutions. Bad loans are made because the losses are protected by the government, meaning tax payer. When there is little or no risk involved, bad choices are made. This interferes with an otherwise free market. More investments are made into mortgages that should be made other places if it were not for the subsidized mortgage loans that have very low interest rates. This raises the interest rates for loans in other areas that would have more people wanting loans if it were not for the artificially low interest rates in the mortgage market. This thus slows down the economy in other sectors meaning the health of the housing market becomes even more vital to the overall economy. When the housing market then struggles the whole economy is hurt even worse. Thus our present situation.

This is why the housing bubble enlarged so much so quickly. Now that it has burst the government has bailed them out which adds to the easiness of making stupid loans in the future. Thus the economy will rebound in the next few years, more bad loans will be made, and in a decade or so the government will once again bail out these companies when that bubble bursts. I can not complain about the current bailout because without it a crisis would pursue. But we now need to get government out of the whole business of interfering with the free market. People should get loans based on income, credit history, work history, etc, and companies should start reaping the costs of making bad loans as well as the benefits. This means there will be no housing bubble forming, fewer people will buy homes, but we will not have massive downturns either in our markets and economies like we have now.

The only thing worse than a government ran operation is government interfering with otherwise free markets which have even a worse effect on the economy. I hope this is the last bailout I hear of in my lifetime. But I know that it will be one of many to come in our entitlement mentality nature that the government has created.

The Fallacy of Government creating jobs

2008-09-14T13:27:00.001-07:00

If anyone cares about their country and is old enough to vote, they have surely heard about Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's plan to invest some 150 Billion dollars over 10 years in an effort to create "green" jobs that amount to some 5 million high paying positions. To most people this sounds like a very attractive idea and plan. But most people are ignorant of economic concepts so lets look into the fallacy of government creating new jobs.

The United State Government cannot "create" new jobs as in "create" new wealth like Obama and others try to claim. The fallacy in this argument is that Government does not create anything without destroying another. I have already lost some of you I'm sure so allow me to explain. Government owns no amount of money and thus can create nothing. It can only take what we have in the form of taxes and then do with that money what it wants instead of us doing what we would have wanted if we could have kept the money. This misunderstanding is known as the "Broken Window Fallacy". This analogy is in great timing. If Obama's plan made sense then it would also make sense to say that you are glad that hurricane Ike hit Texas because now there are many jobs that will be created to rebuild the homes and businesses that have been destroyed. The truth is yes jobs are available down there now to do this but those jobs have simply been transferred from one place to another to fix something that has been broken. When someone breaks a window a glass maker is paid to fix it. That is a job "created". But that money could have been spent somewhere else thus a job is also loss. That job might have actually created wealth instead of fixing something that has been broken.

The point is simple. Obama "creating" these 5 million jobs is not him creating wealth or anything that would benefit us. It is him diverting resources that could be spent somewhere else, to do what HE thinks is best. He believes that he and his politician crew and his advisers know what is best. That is why he is running for president. But the truth is that since the free market private sector has not created these green jobs already it means that those jobs must not be very efficient and in fact must be a waste of resources. If it were worth something, someone in the private market would have already been doing this work in order to earn high profits.

When Obama makes his beautiful speech about creating these "green" jobs, what he is really saying is this: "I know what is better to do with your money then you yourself know what to do." Obama wants to raise our taxes to pay for his programs because he believes that HE is smarter with OUR money that WE are. The question is not whether or not Obama is creating new jobs for the economy while also helping the environment. I just answered that. The question you have to ask yourself is "do I think Barack Obama knows what is better to do with MY money than I do?"

Why government should not pay to rebuild disaster areas

2008-09-11T16:33:00.000-07:00

As we approach the middle of "hurricane season" lets discuss the fallacy of protecting and rebuilding areas that have been hit with terrible disaster. It was only a few years ago that Hurricane Katrina all but destroyed the great city of New Orleans. No doubt the people in New Orleans were hurting and are thankful for the help Uncle Sam has given them. Allow me to discuss to you why the federal government is responsible for many of those deaths in New Orleans. It is not the typical liberal talking point such as: "George Bush does not like Black People." Recently charged felon Kayne West knows about as much about government and George Bush as I do about his rap music! I will address this from an educated point of view not an ideological ignorant point of view.

As good and kind as disaster relief and federal flood insurance sounds, it is once again an example of well intentioned policies with terrible unintended consequences. No doubt these programs help people get their feet back on the ground and their lives running again. I am not blinded to the benefits of these two programs. However, politicians typically only talk about the benefits of their programs while ignoring the costs. The costs are not as obvious and thus voters who are ignorant of economics will vote for the candidate that chooses to help them in the heat of a moment instead of studying the future consequences of those programs. When government guarantees disaster relief for people, residents have no incentive of living in an area that would be efficient (safe) for living. Meaning, when you guarantee someones security, their sense of self-responsibility deteriorates. If government did not guarantee the rebuilding of your home, many people who choose to build and live in areas that are prone to disasters such as floods and hurricanes would choose instead to live elsewhere. When government guarantees their financial security such as rebuilding their home why would they make a wise decision in living in a more safe area? In fact this policy only leads to more and more people moving into these sometimes beautiful but truly dangerous areas. This of course raises the cost of repairing these areas as many more people now live there and own homes that need rebuilding. New Orleans is under sea level but that should not scare anyone away from building there if they know that the tax payer is going to pick up their tab when the disaster comes.

About 30 years the government decided to collect some of that money by offering federal flood insurance. This way the residents pick up part of the costs. Residents are charged a few hundred dollars for their premium to insure their house that is built next to the ocean or next to rivers that flood regularly. In a pure free market these insurance premiums should cost thousands of dollars each month to truly cover the risk involved in building in those areas. That is why government provides it. If a service were efficient the private sector would usually fund it as people can make money providing that service. When government gets involved it is often because they are providing a service that no one needs or desires when charged a proper price. Since government collects trillions of dollars in taxes, it is easy for them to pick up that tab.

The fact is if government did not offer these benefits to such people, those people would not have lived in those areas. True, New Orleans would not be the exciting city that it is today. But other cities in the area would simply be bigger and offer the fun that New Orleans offers. True, many of the people living in beautiful home would not have the same great view they have while living in an elevated home on the beach. But our taxes would be much lower instead of protecting these morons who choose to live there only because they know that when that hurricane comes as it does every 5 years, they will be protected and covered. The fact is, if government did not have such a stupid policy, those poor people who were killed on that terrible day when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, would not have been living there to begin with.

As Hurricane Ike closes in on Texas and other gulf region states, be reminded that although I believe that people need charity when unexpected disasters take place, having government incentivize them to live in dangerous areas by bailing them out when their home is destroyed is not a good policy when adding up the benefits and costs.

Fixing Our Education System - Conclusion

2008-09-05T17:37:00.000-07:00

I'm excited about getting comments from time to time on my blog. It is encouraging that more people are now reading it. I will address the most recent comment on my first blog on education and summarize what our education system would look like under this transformation. This will be written as if I were explaining my education reform in a speech as a candidate for president of the United States. Enjoy:

Ladies and Gentlemen I propose to you that we allow all parents who have children attending school the right to choose where they would like to send their child to school. In whatever state you live in, you can now send your child to any school in that state. I propose a voucher system that represents an amount of money that will follow your child where he or she attend. The amount of that voucher will be based upon the average spent last year per child in that county plus the growth of inflation each year. If you want to send your children to a christian school of some sort, so be it. If you would rather send him or her to our now privately ran but publicly funded schools, so be it. Where you want them to go, they go.

The voucher will represent a specific amount of money that the school you choose can exchange for money from the government. The school can choose to charge whatever they feel is needed to properly run their school. If they can impress parents and run it for less than the voucher is worth, they can keep the excess money to make improvements or choose to give it back to YOU, the parent, as an incentive to keep your child there. At any time, if you feel that the school is not living up to its responsibility of educating your child, feel free to move your child to another school of your choosing. This will bring about the same competition to our education system that is already thriving and successful in making our economy the envy of the world- even during downturns like we are currently having. This competition will breed achievement. If your school's owner hires a principal that believes using advanced technology to teach your child to learn then so be it. If the principal prefers a student centered school system that uses group learning and active learning, so be it. If you would rather go to a more traditional teaching school that is mostly teacher-centered with discussion and lecture, so be it. It is your choice. In fact most schools will use different strategies for different subjects depending on what has been found to be the most successful strategy.

For you students that prefer the technical path as opposed to the universal path, I have tremendous news for you. With this added competition, owners of schools will begin to set up schools that specialize in technical studies. No longer will each school have a sub-par technical path with shop classes that get sub-standard supplies to use in the education of your child. Schools will specialize in this area and students from all surrounding areas will attend that school bringing in large amounts of cash flow, supporting many different fields of learning, and the best teachers of all crafts to one spot to maximize the potential of developing those skills needed for the workplace. No longer will college or technical college be required by most businesses looking for these skills as students leaving high school will be schooled beyond their years in those fields as they all have had the best teachers and best resources to learn from. With businesses demanding their services due to seeing the fruits of their work in high school, your child will be able to go straight into a high paying job immediately upon graduation.

Schools will now adapt to the needs of the economy whether that means more subject matter with technological skills that are needed to prepare students for today's economy or some other skill that is in large demand from our society. No longer will teacher unions and government officials in Washington or your state capital make these tough decisions requiring lots of information that no government employee can possibly obtain. Instead the free market will make changes as the principals and owners will have the freedom to do what they believe is best for the student. This of course will be based on what employers are telling them. Principles will now be incentivized to travel to companies and asking what employers are looking for in a child's education. Change and adaptation will be done much quicker now that the market of millions of people's needs will bring about this change instead of a group of government paid employees in some room trying to figure out what changes to make in our education system.

I will close with this. Athletes who would love to play for the best coaches and best schools for their sports. No longer are you forced to attend a school that does not care about a particular sport and keep coaches around that continue to fail their athletes in not helping them reach their full potential. You can choose where to attend school and thus what coach and system to play in. Imagine the resources athletes that will now be available to you who are committed to playing at the best schools. Those schools will invest into the best equitment to get you to come there so they can receive that voucher.

Teachers, I have wonderful news. You will no longer be paid based upon experience and education alone. Your pay will be merit paid. Principals that need to improve the history, English, math, science, or any other department in order to improve the quality of their education to impress parents to bring their students there, will pay you what they need in order to get you to teach for them. If you work hard and are a successful teacher, the better schools with the more students going and thus receiving the most funding, will now pay you what you demand mixed with how much they really want you. Attention math teachers and science teachers, you will be paid more than the physical education and history teachers in that your job qualifications are harder and in lower supply. This way we will never have a shortage of teachers in tough areas of study that few decide to study in college. As these areas will now pay more, more students will receive those degrees. Coaches, you will be paid what the school has to pay you to get you to come there. No longer will a school board be voting what they think you should be paid. Those people who have the most information for what that school needs to impress the parents and students will be making those kinds of decisions. Thus the best hardest working coaches, teachers, and principles will be paid the best.

Ladies and gentlemen, elect me as President, and I will put you and your child first, not the government officials and teacher unions. Thankyou, and God bless you and God bless or students.

JESS

Barack Obama Convention Speech (refined)

2008-09-02T18:26:00.000-07:00

MY FRIENDS PLEASE READ COMPLETELY THROUGH. THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON BARACK OBAMA'S MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH HE WILL EVER GIVE:

Due to living with a man who has no interest in politics whatsoever, I had to record his speech on my DVR and have just now finished watching it. These are my comments on just a few parts of his speech:

I find it interesting that he addresses his "great friend Dick Durbin" in the opening line of his speech. Dick Durbin is only a senator who compared, without apology, our troops to Nazi troops of World War II. Barack Obama then addresses when he got his start in politics. I would have advised him not to do this as it demonstrates to us his lack of experience and how short of a time he has really spent serving our country. He is without a doubt the least experienced candidate our nation has ever had for president.

Obama then mentions that our economy is in turmoil. Last quarter we had a slightly more than 3% growth in GDP despite democrats and pundits, as well as the mainstream media talking heads saying that we were in a recession. Many European countries that those idiot praise so highly wish they could boast of a 3% growth in GDP last quarter. Oh and we are in a slow down. But a 3% growth during a slow down with employment still around 5.5% - 6% and actually looking to not rise too much higher is one heck of an economy during a downturn. We only wish that the downturns of business cycles were this good a decade or two ago. Don't get me wrong. These are tough times for some people. There is no doubt that the economy is not as strong as it has been in other times. But we are in a downturn to correct a business cycle. In just over a year from now things will be racing forward again and jobs will be getting created. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is some gloom and doom time when our bad times are far better than most country's good times.

He then wants to blame President Bush for the "housing crisis" mess. That is rediculous. There are economic reasons for this so called crisis. People bought too much! Interest rates were kept too low by the Federal reserve and people got loans that they thought would be cheap forever. But when interest rates go back up, these people find out that their prices just went up. People should not have stretched their budget so far. If there are any politicians to blame it is liberal like Obama that pass laws that pressure banks to give loans to people they would not truly want to give loans to. This will also turn around. The value of our homes are going down. This is true. But the value of our homes were too high not long ago. This is a correction. There are many hurt by this including people in my family. But there are many people who are helped. And those who did not strecth themselves too much and keep their houses which values have dropped, well they will see those value come back up shortly. Don't blame Bush that is ignorant.

He then rediculed free trade! Really? Free trade has made us so much richer. Look at what you buy that does not come from America. If it was made here it would cost a lot more. Now ask yourself how much less of that stuff you would have if it cost more. Free trade sends some jobs overseas. But it creates more jobs for the future and it gives more people things at cheaper prices. I do not want to protect the few jobs and hurt all people who have to buy those products.

Obama then criticizes our government for sitting on their hands while a city drowned? He actually got this one right. Democratic governments in New Orleans led by Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana were in control of those operations. Blanco did not allow the federal government come in until it was too late. I'm assuming you are talking about the local DEMOCRATIC governments right? Of course he was referring to the Federal response but anyone who understands our government system of Federalism knows that it is primarily the local governments responsiblilty for disasters such as that.

He then talks about how McCain does not understand everyday American people. I believe it is McCain that does townhall meetings where questions are asked and he answers them to and from local citizens. You Mr. Obama, give speeches in front of thousands without taking questions using a teleprompter. That is unless it is a taped interview with the always grilling Katie Couric, Brian Williams or maybe Bob Gibson.

He then fusses that McCain supported tax cuts for big corporations but not 100,000,000 Americans. Really? He supported the Bush tax cuts which gave a tax cut to almost everyone but those who do not pay taxes. The top 50 percent in this nation pay over 95% of the taxes. So it would be hard to give someone a tax cut who does not pay taxes. It is those rich corporations and rich people that hire workers. That is why it is good to give them tax breaks. Some of those jobs that go overseas that you were whining about earlier could have stayed here if they could pay less in taxes! Oh and this trickle down effect was successful under Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Two of those were fellow Democrats Mr. Obama.

Now he starts explaining what he is going to do:

He says he wants a tax code to help businesses and workers. But yet you want to raise taxes on most of them? He says he will not give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs oversees like McCain does. What? We should be wanting to give them tax cuts so they will stay here you idiot! He has a goal of energy idependence within 10 years. How are you going to do that when you are against all kinds of energy that actually work? Against Oil, clean coal, nuclear power!! Those are the best sources of energy and you are against all them.

Finally now he starts to talk about a little personal responsibility at the end of his speech! Now I'm liking this. Too bad it is such a small part of his speech. If McCain wants to have a debate about temperate and judgement then I am ready to have it? Really? You originally agreed to meet with him doing townhall meetings and then changed your mind and chose not to debate him and travel with him. Well it stays with your campaign slogan: CHANGE you can believe in.

He then does a quick run down on those things that he is on the wrong side of and knows he can't spend much time on: Abortion, Gun Control, Teen-age pregnacy, Same-Sex marriage, and immigration. He knows those are losing battles for him so he talked about those issues for a combined 45 seconds.

Ladies and Gentlemen I just touched the surface of this speech. Everyone of our founding fathers are rolling over in their grave as this man who wants to be president of this great nation now promises to continue ruining everything that those men just a little over 200 years ago promised us. Please I beg you, do not allow him and the democratic party the opportunity to do this.

Thankyou,
JESS

Fixing Our Education System part 3

2008-08-31T15:48:00.001-07:00

I had a comment on my original blog that asks how someone who has only taught for 3 weeks his whole life would know the answer to fixing our education system. This reminds me of the professors that would look at me like I was some moron for questioning someone like them with all their experience and me with very little. The fact is that I have had very few if any original thoughts on most of these issues. I might add something such as what I will discuss today. But for the most part these ideas have first been tried in other countries, second come from top ranked economist that study the effects of competition in any sector of an economy, and three have been well thought out and not just thrown together and written about.

I asked in the last post why we do not depend on the private sector to educate our children to be able to work in the private sector that we love so much. We hate government ran operations and love most of our private ran operations. Yet I hear liberals talk about how we "can not allow such an important institution be left to the free markets of private competition to operate." What? Private competitive corporations do things efficiently. We should beg them to get into the business of educating our young people!!

If each parent received a "voucher" for each of their children that was estimated to be the amount spent per student in that school system already, that parent should then be able to take that voucher to any school of their choice. This includes both private schools and current "government" schools. For you who say that there is a separation of church and state and thus it would be unconstitutional for that money to be spent at a religious private school of some sort, please stay tuned for future blogs that will explain the fallacy in that argument. Schools would thus compete for your child attending their school. There would be an owner of the school that would hire a principle to run the everyday operations of the school like a CEO would a business. If that principle is not living up to what the owner wants then he is fired. Same thing with teachers that do not perform. Teacher unions would become a non-issue as the CEO would not allow for tenure if he did not want it. Sure there would be Unions that would compete for memberships and promise some of the same promises they do today. But as today in the private sector, unless an owner wants to hire union workers, he or she would not have to. Plus their influence on curriculum would be at a minimum and most importantly could not guarantee tenure.

Schools would not only compete for students by trying to run the best schools and get the best teachers to help teach your child. They would also try to do it while saving as many resources as possible. This is because the school can charge less than what the voucher is worth. Any left over funds could be kept by the school or given to the parent in a form of cash. Thus to incentivize parents to bring their children there, they will get good teachers and do it for as cheap as they can without sacrificing success in academics and sports, and thus convince parents by advertising so much money back in cash from that voucher. Due to this newly created market, money and resources will not be wasted and efficiency will be met.

Your child will receive the best education that can be attained at the best price. If the school is not satisfying the customer, you will shop somewhere else. This would allow those students stuck in failing schools to move out of them into a successful school. The value of the voucher will increase by an inflation amount each year to cover growth in prices. If schools wanted to charge more than what a voucher is worth they could. It is a free market after all. Raises in prices would be needed for really good schools that were successful and saw a large increase in the amount of students attending or wanting to attend. Their school might become over flowing and need new construction. Due to high demand the price rises for a time, thus raising the extra funds needed to build new classrooms so that in just a year or two, more students could then attend it that could not have before at a lower price with the rise in supply of room.

In the next blog I will summarize the proposition and explain more benefits for parents, students, and yes teachers such as myself. Please tune in later.

White Men Can't Run

2008-08-30T09:22:00.000-07:00

Dinesh D'souza recently wrote an article entitled the above title of this blog. He bases it on a book written by Amby Burfoot that chronicles how whites have been less successful in sports that require lots of running. If you watched the Olympics these past couple of weeks and for the past few decades you will learn something that is very interesting and yet almost never spoken about. People originally from Western areas of Africa win most all the races of any type. They are also the people who usually play receiver, defensive back, and running back on the football field. They now even dominate the Defensive line, especially the Defensive End position. Blacks from West African decent dominate in the game of basketball as well. How many times has a mostly Western African descendant basketball team lost in the Olympics? I believe the United States loses one game for ever twenty something they win in the Olympics and world championships. Most of the players- black

The book that D'souza sites in his recent column investigates the reasons for this. Their body type, skeleton and muscle make-up are the main reasons for this. Such a simple answer. Hmmm.. lets see.... one particular ethnicity has a particular build that benefits them to run faster, run longer and jump higher.... That is probably why they compete so much better in those sports that require faster runners, longer runners, and higher jumpers. Why does no one talk about that? D'Souza believes it has something to do with pointing out those advantages would mean that people would point out advantages that the average white person might have over a black person. Thus racism would abound somehow.

Random thought: Why do we hear so much about how many more black coaches we need, black quarterbacks should get a chance, and how few black swimmers there are, but yet nothing about white runners, white basketball players, and white skilled players in football? Maybe D'souza is on to something. This I do know. I'm tired of people being so politically correct that they refuse to simply state the obvious out of fear that the truth might not comfort a political mindset that they have. That being that discrimination still abounds in this terrible country that so many of them think we have.

Fixing our education system part 2

2008-08-27T11:13:00.001-07:00

Ask yourself a question. What is it that I like best about this country? Just keep it simple nothing too deep.. You know like our grocery stores. Food is always there, they are never out of anything, and it is somewhat cheap considering what goes into the process of actually getting that food there on the counter for you to push a buggy by and pick up. We love our retail stores. Wal-mart, American Eagle, Express, Old Navy, etc.. You name it we love it. Have you gotten mad there before? Maybe when they did not let you take something back or could not get help as fast as you wanted it. But you still shop there out of choice. We have a wide selection of brands to choose from. You can choose to shop for looks, comfort, or price. If you need something cheap.. there is Wal-mart. You might not like their service as much (although I have been treated well there) but if you want to shop for service, go to the stores I mentioned above. Wal-mart is there for its low price. And if you like something in between or a store where you can pick out something of many different brands, you have J.C. Penny, Sears, Belk, Maceys, etc.. You name it, the United States has it.

Why do we like those places so much? I'll tell you why. Because if we didn't, you would go somewhere else and that place would go broke and out of business. So they have to do what they need to do (Wal-mart: keep prices low, Express: Keep up with the trend) to make you happy. Anything ran by the government we usually do not like. The Post Office, Airport Security, Road Construction that takes so long to complete, Medicare, Department of Agriculture, Tax Policies to keep up with, and of course the big one.. Our SCHOOLS! Why do we dislike these things so much? Because those institutions are ran by government which has a monopoly on most of that. If you don't like it.. they lose their job right? NO. It stays no matter what. There is no incentive for them to be productive beyond staying just above water and out of trouble. Which brings me to my point.

Lets allow the private sector to educate our kids. The Private sector runs most of the things we like in our country, why not allow the private sector to prepare our students to work in or run those companies we like so much, in the future. We depend upon the private sector for our food to eat, healthcare to stay healthy, make clothes to cover us, build our homes so they don't collapse on us. Oh but DO NOT dear let the private sector educate us! I don't get it to be honest.

How about this: Government funds our education system with "vouchers" that are sent out to every parent that has a kid that is of school age. Wherever that parent wants to take that child they can do it and the voucher counts as money. The Voucher will equal the amount that is spent on average in your local school system per child. Hypothetically lets say... $8,000 a child. That money now goes to wherever that parent chooses to send their child. This means schools will be competing for your child to go to school there so they can receive that voucher. Currently, students are required to go to a specific school that they are zoned in. This means there is no incentive for that school to do everything it can to impress and make that student and more importantly that student's parent happy with the education he or she is receiving.

Just like our business sector that must do everything it can to out do the other. Our schools would now start trying to out do other schools to get you to send your child there. This helps everyone and every school.

In the next blog I will explain why this works and the benefits to this new system. I promise there will be things in the blog that you have never thought of. I hope you tune in

Fixing our education system

2008-08-22T09:26:00.001-07:00

As I complete my second week of my first ever teaching job, I have made some adjustments to my philosophy on education. The adjustments: I can now say that I have experience in our education system and thus my convictions are now stronger than ever that our nation needs to adopt education reform that goes a little like this:

Although our nation spends more money per child for education than every other nation (I'm pretty sure that is correct), Our country still ranks only 19th in the world in terms of education. It is true that all students are educated here and in many of the other countries, poor and disabled students are not counted in the study thus skewing our overall students' performance down. But that does not account for us being ranked as low as 19th. What would I do to change and enhance our education system in America?

Only one thing needs to be changed as far as I can see. This one thing will lead to many other revolutions taking place to fix all the problems with our education system. The troubling thing is this one change is opposed by Teacher Unions, which in addition to Environmentalist, Feminist, and radical civil right activists, have a strangle hold on the Democrat Party. This change would thus require getting Democrats out of Washington. The only way to do that is for republicans to change their recent ways and re-adopt the ideas of economic freedom, restricting government spending, bring back moral standards that end the corruption, and standing up for what you believe in the public square. Republicans such as the president did not defend their policies strongly enough when they were still in power and the democrats took the opening and paraded against the policies of the republicans, and voter opinion shifted. If republicans would get back to their conservative roots and defend themselves in the public square, they will take back the congress and then expand their power. We then need a president that would be revolutionizing not someone like the current president who created comprehensive education reform called: No Child Left Behind.

When this is accomplished, the greatest legislation reform in decades and maybe over a century will take place. This legislation would do only one thing: It would eliminate, with the exception of funding, the entire role of government in our education system. No longer would government ever make any kind of decision in regard to our education system. Government would have only one role. That is that wherever a child decides to attend school, the government would send that school money for that child. That government being the state government as the federal government will never again fund any part of or control any part of our education system. Each individual state will have their own program and decide how best to run their education program. Within a few short years, every state will have adopted a policy of funding the school per student who CHOOSES to attend there. Yes that is right. The child and parents of that child will be able to decide where they attend school. There will never be any such thing as "zoning" for any particular school. Every child can determine, whether currentyl private or currently public school they want to attend.

In the next post I will explain to you why and how having school choice will revolutionize our education system here in America. This change will bring us to the #1 education system in the world, even when you include in it special and handicapped students.

Saddleback Forum with Pastor Rick Warren

2008-08-17T05:33:00.000-07:00

Last night Pastor Rick Warren of Sattleback Church in Lake Forest, California, hosted a forum with the Republican and Democrat presidential nominees. If you missed it go to Foxnews.com and watch it. I would say that it was the best forum that I have ever watched in my short history of following presidential politics. I'm not the only one, Charles Krauthammer, columnist and foxnews employee, said it was the best in history. Look for this forum to be used in the future as presidential nominees will be happy to participate in it. During the forum and this Sunday morning as I study World History before leaving for church, I have watched morning coverage of the forum and one thing sticks out to me.

Some believe that the questions were centered around John McCain's strengths. The people that I have seen say this have emphasized that they do not think Pastor Warren did this on purpose but that the questions that he cares about centers around conservative principles. In other words it was not a conspiracy but that McCain was in a comfortable environment talking about points that are more comfortable to him than Barack Obama. Some would defend Warren and say that it was fair and balanced and that it was a great forum I do not know what you are talking about. Conservatives will say that for the first time Obama looks weaker than McCain and your just upset so your making that up!

Not me. I agree with the skeptics. The forum was set up in McCain's favor. I believe that it was a conspiracy. But not a conspiracy against Barack Obama or in favor of John McCain. The conspiracy was that the questions centered around WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! The questions were tough and centered around leadership, experience, wisdom, seeking more wisdom, belief system, world view, whether evil exist and how do you deal with it, philosophies of life. The questions were tough and to the point. And the questions centered around what is most important about an individual to see if he or she are qualified to be President.

If you are upset that the questions centered around McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses, then maybe you democrats should think twice before nominating a postmodern, pragmatist, young, inexperienced, far leftist, communist and Marxist sympathizer like Barack Obama. It is that simple. And I am not being a partisan anti-Obama guy. The man has admitted that he hung out with Marxist professors for guidance. A pastor of a church like Saddleback was perfect for asking questions like that because a Pastor is an occupation that requires the same qualities that a president must have. In one word- Leadership. This and the other topics are Barack's weaknesses because Barack Obama is a weak presidential candidate.

P.S. But he looks good and is a great speaker when he delivers a planned speech!

Just moved!

2008-08-14T12:04:00.000-07:00

Sorry I have been away so long. I got a phone call from the principal at Sequoyah High, close to Sweetwater, Tn, to come in for an interview just three Mondays ago. I interviewed on Tuesday and found out that I had the job just two Mondays ago and had to move by Tuesday and start getting my class set up and attend a lot of meetings. Finally last week was my first week of teaching but I have had to work extra hard to be prepared for that. So I have been away for a time.

I hope you are following the price of gas fall. I predicted it a couple months ago when President Bush lifted the executive band on drilling. This was a step in the right direction and made speculators bid lower prices for oil due to the possibility that Congress will finally get their act together and lift their ban on drilling. If that happens Oil prices will fall another 25 dollars quickly just as it has 25 dollars just recently. Gas will dip another $.25 over the next couple or three weeks unless the markets change again. But as of now it should be close to an average of 3$3.30 which means around where most of you live it will be closer to $3.15. This will still take a few weeks and it also depends on nothing changing between now and then. Lets hope that happens.

It is my opinion that John McCain is polling this close to Obama because of the drilling thing. With the War in Iraq going well the attention has shifted to the economy. The economy is being hampered dramatically by gas prices amongst other things. Republicans have an advantage on oil prices and thus unless Obama switches his position on it as other economic positions, the polls should remain close. Something that no one could have predicted a few months ago with the hype of Obama stirring around the liberal leaning media.

I will soon hopefully have my work here caught up and start blogging again soon. I will soon start a series on our founding documents and the impact of God in our country early on in our history. I will discuss the originality of the phrase : Separation of Church and State. It should be interesting. I hope you tune in.

How To Win The Black Vote

2008-07-31T10:31:00.000-07:00

Due to writing blogs that have to be divided into two, three, and even four part series', I have to put off writing about other issues that are relevant at a particular time. This is one of those cases. It was not too long ago that John McCain spoke to the NAACP. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations are anti-Republican to say the least. George Bush did not speak to them until years after his presidency because of the disrespect that group shows him. John McCain was shown the same respect as some protested by reading the newspaper much like I did in my high school days when the opposing basketball teams starting lineup was being announced in the Oliver Springs gymnasium. So how should a conservative (which McCain is not) really go after the Black vote?

First, do not try to suck up to them, apologize to them, bring up history of racism to them, etc. That has been done and no one is better at the liberal approach then Democrats are. So even if McCain is the most popular Republican to the NAACP and the Black population, he will still not get their vote over Obama. I would go after that small percentage of black voters who have not been convinced of their "Victimization" standing in America. Conservatives must take a different approach, an approach that might only win 20-25% of the vote this year but is still more the 10-15% they usually receive. So how do we do this?

Go after Democrats on their support for teacher unions and their hatred of school choice. There is no group in America that is hurt more by our communist style education system we have in this country then the inner city black kid. NO ONE! Look into the camera and tell every inner-city poor black family that I will work to get school vouchers to you so that you can take your child to any school of your choice. That voucher will be worth the current amount spent per child to a typical public school in that area. That amount will now follow that child to any school of your choice including private schools. If you can not afford to send your children to the area private school well take this $8,000 dollar voucher and all you have to do is pay the rest. Currently you pay large sums of taxes and then watch that money wasted on a failing government school. I want to empower you not the teacher unions.

Then tell those same black families that you will clean up their community. Are we going to do that by sending money and more resources to rebuild broken homes and businesses that have moved out of the area? No we are not. I as President will appoint judges that will prosecute criminals to the fullest extent. Lawyers will no longer be able to free their clients from prison sentences that punish violent behavior. I will appoint judges that will not allow child predators out of prison after only a few years. Your communities will be cleaned up because the criminals that tear your city down will now be thrown in jail for maximum years! Your children will be safe from drug dealers and rapist for now on! Vote for me and I promise to take the resources currently spent on long drawn out court cases and appeals and instead spend it on more prisons and guards to keep criminals off your streets.

Finally I will explain how liberal policies that are suppose to be well intentioned have destroyed the black community. These policies include the minimum wage law that keeps your young kid from being able to get a job because companies tend not to hire them if it cost so much to do so. I will promote less regulation on building and housing costs that liberal cities such as San Fransisco have passed that have resulted in rising housing costs due to lower supple and a departure of over half the black community from those cities. I will lower taxes on corporations and small businesses so that they will invest more money into more jobs and more opportunities that will benefit all low wage workers in every part of the country.

I'm tired of seeing liberal Republicans worry about trying to make all Black people happy like Democrats have. I want them to go after the 25% of the black vote that have been waiting on a politician that will pass laws and enforce laws that will make them smarter and safer. Eventually that 25% will grow. The good news is that 25% will win the election this year and continue winning those elections in years to come.

Political Solutions for Political Problems Part II

2008-07-27T15:54:00.000-07:00

Thomas Sowell starts his latest article with: "We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating. " I can get frustrated when I hear family members, friends, or strangers talk about which candidate for president will do the best in solving the problems our county has. They wish they would fix the housing crisis, the financial institutions mess, our airlines, gas prices, and I could go on and on. Most of us who study history and economics and have principles which foundations are built around the ideas freedom, private property rights, and federalism, would rather have a politician stand up and say "When elected I promise to take government out of the business of regulation and interference in the free market. I promise that when a slow down in our economy comes about that I will do NOTHING other than look for other ways to keep us in Washington from screwing everything up!"

In addition to government passing laws that incentivize and in fact force banks to make loans to people and in places they otherwise would not, local governments pass other laws that artificially raise the cost of housing. When a local government puts price ceilings on apartment rentals the amount of housing built in those areas goes down with landlords moving into other areas around the country where they can actually make money. In addition to that, current apartments are no longer maintained and thus are abandoned. All this lowers the supply of housing and thus what happens to the price? If you said it goes up then go to the front of the class. This is why housing is so much more expensive in cities like San Fransisco and New York. When citizens want to buy a house they must get a loan that is larger than they would if such regulations and restrictions were not around which would lead to more building and a lowering of prices. This adds to the housing bubble which bursts as interest rates go back up.

The Federal Reserve kept interest rates so long for so long that many people got loans at very low rates that adjust as the Fed raises their rates. This effects poor people who have to get adjustable-rate mortgages. When the rates go back up on those people who have gotten loans only due to the fact that government forces financial institutions to loan to them, payments increase. This is the "sub-prime" loans we hear about in the news. In areas around the country like in California where a half-million dollar house is the norm, a 4% interest being raised to 6% would mean a rise in about $7,000 a year in mortgage payments.

In a true free market people on the bubble of affording housing would choose to save more while living in a rental apartment that does not cost as much now due to a rise in supply with no regulations on price and zoning laws being greatly reduced. Furthermore without political pressure in Washington the interest rates would not be kept so artificially low for so long. Interest rates being too low incentivizes people to get loans many of whom should not. Interest rates being low also causes the value of the dollar to fall. This eventually leads to an increase in inflation which the Fed must get under control by raising the interest rates back up. This would eliminate most of the huge ups and downs in the economy. More and more economist now blame the New Deal policies for making the Great Depression worse and last longer. In 1987 the stock market crash was just as bad if not worse according to economist Sowell. This time Reagan did nothing. This was not well received by the mainsteam media and many other politicians. All that happened was 20 straight years of huge economic growth, low inflation and very low unemployment rates.

I hope these last two blogs will help you readers realize the beauty of the free market and how politicians cause the problems that they now promise to fix. When I vote I have to vote for the candidate that promises to interfere less than the other. I would love to have a candidate that would never interfere but I know I live in the real world where these facts mean little to politicians trying to get votes.

Political Solutions for Political Problems

2008-07-23T12:08:00.001-07:00

There is very little if anything that angers me more than to see an American citizen get excited to see a politician make a speech about how they are going to fix the problems of our nation. Problems that those knuckle headed politicians caused or was a big part of in the first place! In the next couple posts I will talk to you about the current financial crisis that politicians blame non-regulated predatory lenders for causing. In addition we will look at a couple other examples of politicians wanting to fix problems they caused to begin with.

Politicians love to take advantage of the weak brain of so many American Citizens. Politicians tell us that lending companies who participated in "lucrative" lending practices are some how villains for taking advantage of everyday Americans. Today these "lucrative" companies are now losing millions and some billions of dollars while others are going out of business! Pray tell me how it makes sense to say that a company is going to take advantage of individuals in the loaning business when they know that if those individuals can not make their payments that those lenders too will be hurt just as bad or worse and go out of business? Only a liberal moron would think that is possible.

As Thomas Sowell has recently written about in his recent column that is published in hundreds of magazines and newspapers nationwide, it was not too long ago that there was outrage in Washington and other political capitals over "redlining." This is the practice of banks and financial institutions not lending or approving mortgages in some neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods in particular were questioned. It is true that while 89% of white mortgages were being approved only 72% of black mortgages were being approved. Due to this there was a campaign to get lenders to lend to people that in a true free market, would not be given loans. It is common sense for individuals to only lend in some areas and not in other areas where it is dangerous or there is great risk in not getting that loan back. If politicians want to call that "redlining" then so be it. That does not negate the fact that it is common sense to behave that way.

As far as racial differences it might be good to step back and study whether black and white is the real reason for not receiving loans. Income, credit history, and net worth are three of the prime factors in determining whether a person gets a loan or not. If different groups of people or ethnicity of people are different in those prime categories, there could be great disparities in regards to loan approvals that have NOTHING to do with whether their skin is dark or white. In fact Whites must settle for sub prime loans more often than do Asians. Whites are in fact turned down for conventional mortgage loans more often than Asians. Is this due to racism you think? Funny how the news media never covers these differences but only those of White and Black differences. These prime factors mean a lot to business owners trying to make profits but matter very little to politicians trying to get VOTES.

These laws and regulations that politicians have put on lending institutions have caused the current problem we see today in our financial markets. The Community Reinvestment Act forced many of them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money. This is because the cost of doing business in neighborhoods where neither they nor the politicians wanted to WALK much less start a business would be so high that profits would vanish. Companies are also less likely to want to lend to people they feel will not have the resources to pay in full for the loan they give them. But government has a way of pressuring companies to do just that and this Community Reinvestment Act was only one of the laws that did this.

Other laws and pressures as well as incentives cause lending institutions to lend to people who they otherwise would choose not to lend to in a true free market. In part II of this blog I will explain the economics of this and how it has caused the current problems we have today. We will also examine a couple other political solutions that have caused these same types of problems in the past and continue even today.