Having already heard Obama praised, repeatedly, for saving GM, and having witnessed both presidential candidates show support for the company, I’ve decided that it’s time to explain, not in emotional terms or statistics, but in simple philosophical truths, what exactly it was that Obama saved. For when the matter is closely examined without national prejudice, I believe that what he did by “saving” GM was actually quite sinister. (more…)
24. November 2012
11. November 2012
The world has seen its fair share of injustice and stupidity, but there exists one particularly obnoxious sentiment, masked in pretenses of Christendom, which denies the moral importance of business and profit. Citing most improperly Jesus Christ, ignorant Westerners tout the charity as the supreme duty of all Christians, as though Christ Himself was not a career carpenter and Paul not a tent maker. They pretend as though Judaism — the religion God personally founded — never had anything noble to say of the business operating wife, righteousness resulting in wealth, or that Mosaic property rights overtly establish the righteousness of ownership. They love to quote “sell all you have and give to the poor,” without noting the instructive purpose of that individual commandment to an individual person, and entirely disregard “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” But looking beyond this, there is a question still lurking behind the necessity of production which begs to be answered: whether or not a business is actually less moral than a charity.
28. September 2012
Though in modern times profits are oftentimes assailed as greedy, there stands above all a single example, which, though not attempting to deliver in treatise, or enlighten by lecture, imparts a defense of profit without any sort of controversy. In this case, I speak of Jesus’ own occupation as a carpenter. (more…)
20. September 2012
A short while ago, one of my relatives gave birth to a baby girl. Within hours after delivery, being thoroughly exhausted, the new mother found herself trapped between the need for relaxation and the motherly instinct to caress her newborn, a conflict which the hospital recognized, though the mother had said nothing. The hospital offered a solution: in a gesture appearing to be kindness, the hospital offered to take the newborn into the nursery for a short while so the mother could recuperate, with which the mother agreed. But when the mother and her husband received the bill long after they’d left the hospital, they found themselves in a state of shock: the price of utilizing the nursery alone cost upwards of $800 dollars. Begrudgingly, they paid their portion of the bill, incapable of any effective protest. (more…)
23. July 2012
Though many issues divide the Republican and Democratic parties, one of the most crucial (and unfortunately, least understood) concerns the line drawn between individual and society. In a recent speech, the sitting president controversially remarked,
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. (more…)
9. July 2012
Though neither occupied by foreign armies, nor starved by famine, nor struck with plague, America lies in peril. Not a single man of any character, patriotism, or intelligence denies the fact; the entire free world watches with bitten nails as Americans march ahead, without any sign of stopping or slowing, toward a demise entirely unnecessary, and yet seemingly predetermined by destiny. (more…)
16. January 2012
Perhaps one of the most striking features of the Roman Empire, as noted by countless historians, is the amount of time in which it maintained nearly total supremacy over such a vast portion of the human race. Edward Gibbon, in his historical masterpiece The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, notes not only that the greatest conquests of the Romans were made under its Republican government (which may seem strange to Westerners, in light of recent unrealistically peaceful portrayals of representative democracy), but that the Romans were able to maintain consecutive annexations not for one, nor two, nor even three, but for seven centuries. No empire in modern history is anywhere near comparable: the English and French Empires, after establishing great dominions for only a short while, have been pressured into emancipating those territories into self-government. And the American empire (if it can be called such), while making the greatest military expenditures and displays in all of history, and exerting immense influence across not just portions of the globe, but across the entirity of it, has little beyond its own continental borders to claim as American territory, or even vassal states. (more…)
14. December 2011
Though buried beneath a sea of absurdities and proposed injustices, Americans should take note that some of Occupy Wall St’s demands are not entirely garbage. Aside the attempt to ban electronically recorded voting machines, perhaps the next most sensible demand concerned the abolition of debts; for while these protesters erred in requesting the relinquishment of international debts (as wars have been started for far less), it is not entirely unreasonable to wonder whether the American economy can ever truly rebound when so many — most, actually — Americans are deeply indebted to bankers, if the nation is not itself already owned by the Federal Reserve and foreign powers. (more…)
22. November 2011
The other day, a leftist Mormon acquaintance of mine and I had a brief conversation about Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president. I, being staunchly anti-RINO, and refusing to believe for one second that a candidate’s deeply-held religious beliefs are irrelevant (as true religion comprises the very bedrock of unalienable rights), declared my support for several of the more acceptable candidates before Romney, concluding that Romney lost the Las Vegas debate. But my friend disagreed. Citing statistical favorability amongst gamblers, he argued that market forces chose Romney, and that I, therefore, according to my own conservative appreciation of market forces, must be wrong, and that Romney was the most viable and acceptable option. (more…)
14. November 2011
A short while ago, I wrote an article about how the dual income destroys household stability. Most of the negative responses I received were the typical outbursts I expect from social liberals, entirely emotionally based, and leaving little room for reason and discussion. But there was one argument from several people, in my personal life and as a public author, which made me take a second glance at my position. (more…)
12. November 2011
In a recent article from CNN, an intelligent gentleman, Douglas Rushkoff, took note that technological advancements in the production of necessities are trending toward the destruction of certain jobs, as most of what Americans need is produced by an increasingly small minority of their countrymen. (more…)
26. September 2011
It is oftentimes complained, partially unfairly, that the American lower classes are getting poorer and poorer. But enough has been written, by practically every conservative think tank, about how the welfare state and anti-discrimination legislation destroy neighborhoods, and promote the business interests of those with poor moral constitutions (leftists, primarily) by providing layabouts with an arsenal of unreasonable lawsuits. This article, recognizing the above socio-economic maxims, will seek instead to show how feminism has played an equal, if not greater role in impoverishing American lower classes, an aspect of American poverty which has not been adequately addressed, perhaps because it is culturally offensive to do so. (more…)
28. November 2010
Is there a moral balance between liberty and security, or are the two mutually exclusive?
Can the rich ever become so rich, that they strangle the poor? And what qualifies as “strangling”?
Must a capitalist globalization lead toward an impoverishment of the American working class?
Should the poor have a safety net, and if they do, how much of a net should they have?
Do the rich have an obligation to bolster the wealth of society, aside from providing jobs and infrastructure?
Since the dawn of civilization, man has sought timeless principles to address the concepts of wealth and poverty, justice and equality. Karl Marx was one of these people. (more…)
15. November 2010
In these troublesome times, as the costs of occupation take their toll on both this generation and our children’s children, and as the repercussions of foreign involvement threaten our global standing and security, an increasing constituency of both the left and right are beginning to wonder whether America was ever intended to be an internationally-active force. Citing numerous embarrassments in Middle-Eastern policy, exportation of jobs resulting from a botched free trade, and the flagrant disregard of our trading partners’ injustices, these isolationists, while not incorrect about the problems of foreign involvement, forget that our Founding Fathers never intended us for autarky or isolationism. (more…)
28. October 2010
One of the most entertaining videos I’ve ever seen about the principles of capitalism. Very uncommon wisdom, worth sharing!
6. June 2010
Any way you look at it, Americans are overtaxed. There’s a tax for gasoline, and a tax for buying a car. There’s taxation when you get paid, and taxation when you spend. If you own a corporation, you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for being a corporation, and if you just own a business, you have to pay taxes for unemployment funds. If you buy a home, there’s a tax, and if you just sit in your home, there’s another tax. If you’re in Washington State, you have to pay extra taxes for buying liquor and cigarettes, and if you want a carbonated beverage, you have to pay a special tax for that, too. And the taxes are for one purpose: to ensure that the things our government pays for are paid for.
Now, it’s fairly obvious to everyone that despite our massive amounts of taxation, we’re still not meeting our budgetary demands (Currently, we’re facing a yearly deficit of 1.5 trillion, on top of last year’s 1.4 trillion. To put this in perspective, our Fortune 500 only has a yearly net income of 391 billion dollars). And despite the fact that we can’t pay for everything we want, both parties keep promising tax breaks to specific people. Republicans want to tax everyone less, Democrats claim to want less taxation for the poor (a bizarre statement, since most truly poor people pay nothing in federal income taxes), and both sides use these arguments against their opponents every time an election season comes around. This is especially ironic, since our progressively mounting deficit is being met with a political demand: that the person receiving the majority’s vote never win on the promise to responsibly raise taxes across the board. (more…)
11. April 2010
In regard to welfare, traditional American ideas have generally differed in one of two ways: either the lazy and immoral poor must be able to leech the public treasury through a liberal system of welfare, or we must let the truly unfortunate fall through the cracks with a more libertarian approach. Either way, the American public has been forced to deal with one of two evils. And quite frankly, neither one is just.
But supposing we could devise a compromise between the two systems, in which the moral poor could receive a hand up without giving the immoral poor a hand-out, we could strike a deal which both Republicans and reasonable Democrats would appreciate. The funny thing about this compromise is that, for Christian conservatives, the answer has been under our noses almost since the beginning of civilization. (more…)
26. February 2010
When Americans believed in Truth, they used to say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is to say, just because a plan of action has a noble purpose doesn’t necessarily guarantee a noble outcome, kinda like the plan to save homeowners from the horrors of foreclosure. While appearing as a noble goal upon first glance, after a deeper look at the policy is taken, whether due to miscalculation or corruption we find that the only people truly benefiting from his attempts are powerful bankers.
To clarify before making my point, having a banking system is healthy, but investment lending and consumptive lending are two completely different things. While investment lending lends money for the purpose of potentially increasing the income of the borrower either through business or education, consumptive lending does not potentially increase the wealth of the borrower. Borrowing money to go to school should result in a higher income for the borrower, after which he or she should be more financially secure than before. On the other hand, consumptive lending for televisions has no effect upon the borrower’s income, while allowing him to buy something he couldn’t otherwise afford. (more…)
10. January 2010
A short while ago, I found myself in a conversation with an organic soap-maker at the Pike Place Market. To be fair, his soap was very high-quality stuff, but I found one serious problem with it: the soap was exorbitantly priced. Since I was dealing with the soap-maker himself and had the option of purchasing a slightly lower quality soap in bulk for a far more affordable price (less than $5 a bar, thank goodness), haggling seemed my best option. So haggle I did.
What I found was that the soap-maker couldn’t sell me on the quality of the bar at that price, and he knew this–as he didn’t put up much of a fight. But what he then said to me has puzzled me ever since: the reason I should buy the soap, he said, was because he paid his soap-makers $18 an hour, which is more than I currently make at the moment. Not sold on the idea, I smiled, declined, and took off. I’d later go on to buy about 17 more bars for about three bucks more. (more…)
24. October 2009
Everyone knows that liberal politicians get into power by promising to fight the rich for the sake of the poor, which is known as populism. Modern liberals like Barack Obama tell us they want to jump start the economy with government spending, which will create more jobs. They promise to increase forms of public welfare and expand things like health-care for everyone, because it’s going to benefit you–the little guy–mostly at the expense of the bourgeois. Of course, anyone with at least a little economic common sense knows this is a bunch of bunk. In fact, by looking at numbers we can find their policies are helping few other than the rich, especially in the long term.
A) The Liberal Flat Tax
Because the government doesn’t actually have the money to support the entire economy and pay for social entitlements and two occupations, liberal economists like Paul Krugman claim the answer to our problems is quantitative easing, or the government’s inflation of the dollar to jump-start the economy and pay for socialist programs like health-care. This, he claims, would circumvent the problem of debt, as any reasonable person understands that debt ruins financial entities, and moral people realize that funding today’s poor with the future poor’s money–also known as putting it on the baby’s tab–is fundamentally unjust. It places our needs above theirs. (more…)
24. June 2009
A lot of people are being told that Americans are getting screwed by our government’s rescue plan, but most Americans don’t really know how. To give the reader a good example of why this bailout reeks of “mismanagement,” all we’d have to do is look at banks and their excess reserves.
Now, as a little background information, every US bank dealing with more than $43.9 million is ordered by the Federal Reserve to have roughly 10% of their deposit money as reserves on hand (12). This means that if people put $100 in the bank, the bank has to have about $10 on hand and can lend the remaining $90 to other people. Allowing banks to hold only a fraction of their loaned amount on hand is known as fractional reserve banking, and it essentially allows banks to create money (something that you and I would be thrown in jail for. Check that last link out)(1)(2). (more…)
29. January 2009
Waking up in the middle of the night with a revelation isn’t always a fun thing. Sometimes, it happens on a night when you were counting on making up for the sleep you lost during the last few nights, and sometimes you wish you could forget about whatever it is, and go back to dreaming about multicolored and magical Shamwows with beards and beautiful voices (!).
Fortunately for us, revelation wasn’t something yours truly could shake off, and I wanted to bring it to you so that you could prepare yourselves for what’s coming: massive disappointment in Republican AND Democratic leadership on two major issues, and potentially the collapse of our entire economic system. Those two issues are immigration for Republicans and the green movement for Democrats, both reforms being economically impossible under our current banking system. I’d like to tell you why, through the lens of a man named Chris Martenson. (more…)
2. January 2009
Last month the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a statement that they didn’t have enough funds to properly invest in failing countries around the globe, and that they were going to have to “print” money to keep entire sections of the world afloat (1)). Since the world decided that a collective shrug would be a valid response, we can safely assume one of two options:
1)the majority of the western populace is ignorant and apathetic
2)western media outlets have decided to downplay the philosophical significance of the event
So why’s this such a problem?
To give a little background, the IMF was created in 1944 to facilitate global economic development, acting as a central bank to the world (2). A central bank’s main function is to provide relief to failing banks, acting as a last source of credit, and within a fiat currency system having the ability to basically “print” money into existence (9). The IMF is a little different, though, because it’s an international organization that focuses on lending money to failing countries instead of banks, giving a list of changes that the recipients have to make, known as the “Washington Consensus(3).” When countries receive money, they then have to agree to implement the changes deemed necessary to stimulate their economies and ensure a return on the IMF’s investment (privatization and reduction of trade barriers are common requests).
Now, the problem with our current situation is that the IMF, an international body of officials you didn’t vote for, has decided to print money, which acts as a form of taxation because it will reduce buying power and the value of savings, all through inflation of the currency it prints. After all, when more money is available within a system, people will have to pay more for the things they want. Some advocates of the proposal have suggested this may be a good thing, since it can be said that the same inflationary function that reduces savings also reduces debts, and both American society and government are insolvently in debt (4)(5)(6). Philosophically and economically, though, this is incredibly backward. (more…)
So, ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to repeat the same thing everyone else has been repeating for the past umpteen years: the media is lying to you, and you’re being sold something that isn’t only a lie, but is killing the economy. The bad news? Nobody knows what the heck that means. It’s almost as empty a statement as “all politicians are liars:” Everybody says it because it makes them fit in with the cool guys, not because they actually know what politicians are lying about.
As such, I’d like to tackle this issue from the viewpoints of an average American citizen in 2008, calling to light the various misunderstandings with which this current administration has had to deal.
Before I start, though, it should be mentioned that anyone who’s only expecting a purely Democrat-directed grilling is in for a surprise, mostly because the problems we’re dealing with today are so heavily ingrained in both parties that it’s completely impossible to escape by using traditional partisan politics, even though the media and common consensus would have you believe it’s Bush’s fault, and the blogs would have you believe it’s Clinton’s.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve placed stars next to economic concepts that you can easily find in Wikipedia, just in case any readers aren’t familiar with the concepts and would like more information. All the other information will be used from respectable sources, so feel free to dig around in the links. That being said, allow me to tell you why the economy is Bush’s fault, why it isn’t, and why Americans are generally wrong.
Misunderstanding #1: Our unemployment levels are out of control
The first gigantic lie regarding our economy is that right now—in September of 2008—we have more unemployed people than ever before, and there are hordes of people roaming the streets incapable of finding jobs.
This is total garbage.
Actually, we averaged about a 6% unemployment rate in September according to the Department of Labor Statistics, which is better than we had through half of the 90′s when the media was reporting a “good time” (1). Furthermore, at one point in 2007 our unemployment rates were at a cozy 4.5%, almost at the lowest level we had ever achieved through the 90′s, which is very near something known in the world of economics known as “full employment*”. Read that again in case it didn’t soak in. (more…)