Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Peace Prize
Obama's peace prize speech is another example of his powerful ability to share ideas and shape others perception of him. He is good at that. There has been a great deal of controversy over whether he deserved the prize. It seems obvious to me that he has not earned it and the prize was given to him because he is not Bush. But I think Obama agrees and acknowledged he has not earned it. He used his speech to promise he will do his best and do the work to earn it. God be with him. I hope he does.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Fire Alarm
It figures. The night I have huge project to finish, the fire alarm goes off in the library, keeping me out for 40 minutes. I was going to be to bed by midnight....
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Obama's Address
Obama’s got me convinced. I did not vote for the man. Some of his policies I disagree with. But after reading this speech, I am a little more convinced that he is a man who thinks through the problems before him and deals with them rationally. That is the ideal I strive to live by and I admire any man or woman who does the same.
When I first heard that Obama was going to announce a time frame to withdraw from Afghanistan, I was very skeptical. I agreed with the many who ask, “What is to dissuade the Taliban from simply biding its time until we withdraw?” While Obama stated nothing that directly answered this problem, he point out very important factors to consider.
First, we do not have the resources to fight an endless war and spend time building up Afghanistan. We are stretched as it is. We do not have the political will or desire as a nation to do so. We have a recession to recover from.
Second, Afghanistan needs to stand on its own. We are not a conquering power. We are a nation that has turned away from empire-building. It is not a part of our constitution. A fundamental ideal that we declare is freedom, liberty, and self-determination for all people. Afghanistan needs to stand on its own. We cannot act as a crutch.
It is important, morally and practically, to pull out of Afghanistan. Not right away, but after we have done the best we can with the resources we have. I do not have the information to make that decision. Obama and his advisors do. His arguments seem sound to me. Therefore, I support President Obama in this decision and pray that God truly is with us.
Obama's Address on the New Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Health Care
I'm posting again. It's been a while and perhaps no one will read this. We'll see.
Here's an interesting post about universal health care. The author points out a fact I had not fully realized until one of my economics professors pointed it out last week - the United States already has socialized health care. The problem is we are only half way there. We guarantee health care to the elderly, the non-working poor (I'm not entirely clear on this point, so correct me if I'm wrong), and our E.R.'s are open to anyone.
The sad state of our health care is obvious when we consider that "the United States... spends much more per capita on health care than any other country," yet "does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures.." Why do we spend so much? I don't know, entirely, but it seems to be connected with the fact that we have allowed the government to make certain laws that hurt the efficiency of the market, but will not let it step in to help.
I believe setting up a system that guarantees health care to everyone is right and just. Can we do that without sacrificing other things? No. We may be a little less affluent as a nation, but is it right to have some healthy rich people and a lot of dying poor people? The fact is, if we do this right, we will reduce the costs of the health care system.
I am not arguing for socialized medicine. Private hospitals, private doctors, etc. will provide more efficient heath care. But we must change the system so more people have access to it at a lower cost. How? I do not know. Is the Congress on its way to doing so? I hope so. There are a lot of smart people up there debating this. The problem is the incentives are not necessarily there for them to do what's best for the country. The incentives push them to do what's best for their constituents.
I'm tempted to go on a tangent about a whether the system we have set up - called Congress - is effective or not. But, I'm out of time.
We have serious problems with health care. We need to do something. I am glad those in power are doing something. I hope as I research it, I find that it makes sense.
Here's an interesting post about universal health care. The author points out a fact I had not fully realized until one of my economics professors pointed it out last week - the United States already has socialized health care. The problem is we are only half way there. We guarantee health care to the elderly, the non-working poor (I'm not entirely clear on this point, so correct me if I'm wrong), and our E.R.'s are open to anyone.
The sad state of our health care is obvious when we consider that "the United States... spends much more per capita on health care than any other country," yet "does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures.." Why do we spend so much? I don't know, entirely, but it seems to be connected with the fact that we have allowed the government to make certain laws that hurt the efficiency of the market, but will not let it step in to help.
I believe setting up a system that guarantees health care to everyone is right and just. Can we do that without sacrificing other things? No. We may be a little less affluent as a nation, but is it right to have some healthy rich people and a lot of dying poor people? The fact is, if we do this right, we will reduce the costs of the health care system.
I am not arguing for socialized medicine. Private hospitals, private doctors, etc. will provide more efficient heath care. But we must change the system so more people have access to it at a lower cost. How? I do not know. Is the Congress on its way to doing so? I hope so. There are a lot of smart people up there debating this. The problem is the incentives are not necessarily there for them to do what's best for the country. The incentives push them to do what's best for their constituents.
I'm tempted to go on a tangent about a whether the system we have set up - called Congress - is effective or not. But, I'm out of time.
We have serious problems with health care. We need to do something. I am glad those in power are doing something. I hope as I research it, I find that it makes sense.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Free isn't Free
The news business has produced an excellent example of a basic economics principle: There is no such thing as a free lunch. As the interenet boomed, there was an idea that online ads would be able to pay for everything. The dot-com bust and the struggles since then have shown this is not true. The problem is that people don't like advertsements. Those who know a few basics about the computer download firefox and adblocker. IE8 has an add-on to block ads as well. So a good portion of people never see the ads. And there's the fact that no newspaper or magazine, no matter how big, was able to give away its print version for free and profit from the ads. It is a model that seemed possible, but has been proven ineffective. So they need to and will start charging. Those magazines and newspapers that begin charging for their online content will survive. Those that don't, won't.
The fact is, free content is usually low-quality content. And any high-quality free content is not sustainable. It costs money to produce high-quality content. To pay the reporters, writers, editors, and website designers the newspapers will need money. TO get money, since the ad idea is not functional, that will need to charge money. It's not a complicated idea. As the article mentions, the Economist has been very succesful while charging money. The Wall Street Journal has been just as successful. While newspapers and magazines are declining left-and-right, these two publications are thriving on a model many people denounce. The simple fact is, people are willing to pay for quality. Money is a signal of value. If it costs more, there's a good chance it's higher quality. That is a price I am willing to pay.
The fact is, free content is usually low-quality content. And any high-quality free content is not sustainable. It costs money to produce high-quality content. To pay the reporters, writers, editors, and website designers the newspapers will need money. TO get money, since the ad idea is not functional, that will need to charge money. It's not a complicated idea. As the article mentions, the Economist has been very succesful while charging money. The Wall Street Journal has been just as successful. While newspapers and magazines are declining left-and-right, these two publications are thriving on a model many people denounce. The simple fact is, people are willing to pay for quality. Money is a signal of value. If it costs more, there's a good chance it's higher quality. That is a price I am willing to pay.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Save the Auto Industry
Here is a great op-ed column on the auto industry, or rather, the administrations plans on the op-ed industry. Not too comforting. But perhaps it will be a good thing. If the UAW has a large stake in Chrysler and GM, it will be in their best interest for the companies to run well. So the question is, will they use their new-found powr to bully the companies into giving them higher pay and greater benefits, or will they now have the incentive to only ask for that which will benefit the company as a whole? We'll see what happens.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Amendment I
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-United States Constitution
Recently, two Connecticut legislators seem to have lost their minds. In blatant disregard for the first amendment, they proposed a law which dictated who controlled the Catholic parishes in Connecticut. I don't know if I even need to comment on this, the contradictions and problems are so obvious. One of the legislators, McDonald, claimed, "A lot of misinformation has been spread about this proposal, and we ourselves are still learning exactly what its impact would be."
I read the bill myself. It's not ambiguous at all. It speaks of corporations formed by the Catholic church. These corporations are formed to control the assets of the parishes. "The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote." The bill quite clearly takes away the power of the archbishop or bishop to control his own parish.
How could any self-respecting U.S. citizen, let alone a legislator who is elected to represent the people, take this position? From what I have read, it's a complicated issue. Factors such as traditional anti-Catholocism in the Northeast to sex-abuse scandals to the debate of gay marriage all may have contributed to this bill. Whatever the causes, we are heading for a scary time if legislators are openly attacking churches in this manner.
Time for homework. Here are some good links, though:
Connecticut Legislators Come After Churches Who Stood for Marriage
Citizens Rally by the Thousands! Catholic Take-Over Bill Dies a Messy Death In ConnecticutFriday, February 27, 2009
Day of Prayer for Marriage
February 27, 2009
Dear Friend,
Proposition 8 was put before the people of California, and by a wide margin of 600,000 votes became a part of the California Constitution (Article 1, Section 7.5). Next Thursday, March 5, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to determine whether the sovereign will of the people should be upheld, and whether marriage between only a man and a woman will stand.
This is the most important legal issue impacting families in a generation. The outcome of this case is “do or die” for traditional marriage. If the California Supreme Court were to overrule the vote of the people (for the second time) it would not be long before homosexual marriage is the law of the land across this country.
ProtectMarriage.com, the committee responsible for enacting Prop 8, urges you and all our supporters to take action. We are declaring this Sunday, March 1, to be a Day of Prayer for Marriage.
Proposition 8 was supported by over 7 million voters, and we call on those who support traditional marriage to pray for it to be upheld. Please ask the Lord for wisdom for the Justices of the California Supreme Court. Pray, also, for those who oppose this amendment to our Constitution, that they would understand our motivation is to affirm traditional marriage, not to offend any person or group.
Activists who oppose Prop 8 are organizing a candlelight vigil in several cities for March 4, followed by a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court building in San Francisco on March 5. Organizers against Prop 8 are calling for a march of 100,000 people to the Court building (click here to view their events list). It has come to our attention that many Prop 8 supporters are also making plans to appear at the steps of the Supreme Court building on the morning of March 5. We welcome your participation, but request that all messages on homemade signs affirm traditional marriage, avoiding offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles. If you are in close proximity to San Francisco, plan to arrive by 8 a.m. at the court, located at 350 McAllister. We do not wish to provoke or permit any kind of confrontation with our opponents. Please avoid any such activity carefully. Our only purpose is to remind the media, Californians and Americans everywhere that support for traditional marriage is the majority position in the state. Twice now voters have supported traditional marriage and rejected gay marriage. We won the Prop 8 election. The constitution has been amended. The will of the people should now prevail.
ProtectMarriage.com is the only group that will appear before the Supreme Court to uphold the vote of the people enacting Prop 8 and affirm traditional marriage as the law of the land. The upcoming Day of Prayer will provide a vehicle for all our supporters to express their own support for traditional marriage and to call on God, the author of marriage, to bless the arguments our attorneys will present to the Court and to grant the justices wisdom as they consider the arguments.
Thank you for your support of Proposition 8. Please participate in the Day of Prayer this coming Sunday and, if you are in proximity to San Francisco, come to the steps of the Supreme Court building at 8 a.m. on March 5 to show your support for Prop 8.
To make a financial contribution to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, click here.
Thank you so much for your attention and support.
Very truly yours,
Ron Prentice
Chairman
ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8
© 2008 ProtectMarriage.com. All Rights Reserved. ProtectMarriage.com is a project of California Renewal (I.D. #1302592) | Contact Us
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Trade and Protectionism
Tonight I saw a bit of a news report on CNN regarding the "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus package before the Senate. The reporter stated that the Senate has betrayed American labor by caving in to special interest groups and foreign governments, softening the requirement for new infrastructure projects to rely on American steel.
This isn't central to my argument, but I would just like to point out, exactly why are those who promote free trade "special interest groups" while labor is not?
Also, apparently living up to the treaties we have made with other countries is not important when it comes to steel. Bush is lambasted by the media for hurting America's standing in the eyes of the international community by placing American needs first, but then the Senate is lambasted for "giving into foreign governments" by trying to abide by treaties. So which is it? Respect in the international community or placing America first? Thankfully in this case, we can have both. We can live up to our agreements and grow our economy.
There is a fairly simple mathematical argument regarding trade. This argument is called comparative advantage. It states that when two countries specialize and trade with one another, they will both end up with more than if they tried to produce it all themselves. This is not something anyone can argue. It is a logical proof. Trying to prove it wrong is like trying to disprove 2+2=4. It is always true in our world.
Adam Smith stated, "If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage." The fact is, we can get cheaper, better steel from foreign countries. With the money saved, we will be able to build up other industries. If we really want to create jobs, we need to pour our resources into industries in which we have a relative advantage. Steel may not benefit, but overall, the economy will create more jobs. We will use our resources more efficiently.
In addition, by buying foreign steel, we inject money into foreign economies. More specifically, we inject American dollars. What can they do with American dollars? Not much in their own country. They have to eventually spend that money to buy American goods.
We buy their steel. We don't waste our resources on a product we aren't very good at producing. The money that is not wasted is invested in things we are good at building, such as computers and airplanes. Foreign countries are helped by the money pouring into their steel industry. They expand and their economies recover as well. With a more stable economy and American dollars, they buy our goods. Everyone benefits.
Granted, it's not this rosy and it wouldn't happen quick. But to cut this off would result in losses we simply cannot afford. To put it bluntly, protectionism is economically stupid. It is one of the major factors in the severity of the Great Depression. We cannot recover from this quickly if we do not allow people to trade. If economic recovery comes from people buying products, why make it harder and more expensive for them to do so. Where is the sense in that?
Thankfully, the Senate has softened these restrictions. There is some sense out there.
This isn't central to my argument, but I would just like to point out, exactly why are those who promote free trade "special interest groups" while labor is not?
Also, apparently living up to the treaties we have made with other countries is not important when it comes to steel. Bush is lambasted by the media for hurting America's standing in the eyes of the international community by placing American needs first, but then the Senate is lambasted for "giving into foreign governments" by trying to abide by treaties. So which is it? Respect in the international community or placing America first? Thankfully in this case, we can have both. We can live up to our agreements and grow our economy.
There is a fairly simple mathematical argument regarding trade. This argument is called comparative advantage. It states that when two countries specialize and trade with one another, they will both end up with more than if they tried to produce it all themselves. This is not something anyone can argue. It is a logical proof. Trying to prove it wrong is like trying to disprove 2+2=4. It is always true in our world.
Adam Smith stated, "If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage." The fact is, we can get cheaper, better steel from foreign countries. With the money saved, we will be able to build up other industries. If we really want to create jobs, we need to pour our resources into industries in which we have a relative advantage. Steel may not benefit, but overall, the economy will create more jobs. We will use our resources more efficiently.
In addition, by buying foreign steel, we inject money into foreign economies. More specifically, we inject American dollars. What can they do with American dollars? Not much in their own country. They have to eventually spend that money to buy American goods.
We buy their steel. We don't waste our resources on a product we aren't very good at producing. The money that is not wasted is invested in things we are good at building, such as computers and airplanes. Foreign countries are helped by the money pouring into their steel industry. They expand and their economies recover as well. With a more stable economy and American dollars, they buy our goods. Everyone benefits.
Granted, it's not this rosy and it wouldn't happen quick. But to cut this off would result in losses we simply cannot afford. To put it bluntly, protectionism is economically stupid. It is one of the major factors in the severity of the Great Depression. We cannot recover from this quickly if we do not allow people to trade. If economic recovery comes from people buying products, why make it harder and more expensive for them to do so. Where is the sense in that?
Thankfully, the Senate has softened these restrictions. There is some sense out there.
Monday, February 02, 2009
A Twit?
I've been called a twit. Too bad the person had no argument or anything. Just a name to call me. An intelligent argument would be welcome. My reasoning needs refining.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
This Makes a Little More Sense
Here is one reason why all politicians should study economics. Pelosi is trumpeting ideas long proven false. Fewer kids does not mean a wealthier nation. Granted, there is a short-term benefit. But what is the point of getting through the recession without another generation to hand the succesful economy to?
A Question for Pelosi
Pelosi wants to enact legislation to limit climate change. Not many of us will live long enough to see any difference. Based on her other policies, exactly what future generation does she want to preserve the planet for?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
This is Downright Scary
We've elected a President who does not understand the basic underpinnings of society and is seeking to undermine those underpinnings. I am not exaggerating here. Read my previous posts. Society, every society, is based on differences between genders. There are different gender roles. This specialization happens naturally because of basic, fundamental differences between the sexes that are universal.
In every society, women are mothers. This is due to obvious biological factors. I believe it is also due to emotional and psychological factors. It is not a bad thing. Mothers do a great job at raising children. Men are fathers. They generally defend and provide for the home while the mother spends her time mothering. This has been the case in virtually every successful society. I'm no anthropologist, but I know of no major civilization in which this wasn't true.
This is true because it works. It is a successful system. From it comes good people who can do the same and raise more good people. This system means society is perpetuated. This is a good thing. Take away a mother and you lose a certain amount of compassion and womanly care. Take away a father and you lose a certain amount of judgment and certitude.
We must have men and women. One without the other is incomplete. We have become too individualistic as a society. A society cannot function without people working together and complementing each other. I'm studying economics. I'm good at it. I like to swim, but I'm not very good at it. Michael Phelps is a great swimmer, but he may be lousy at economics. Even if I would rather swim, I choose economics because that is the only way I'll survive in this world. If I tried to make a living off swimming, I'd probably fail. Michael Phelps does very well focusing on swimming, but if he tried to do economics, he probably wouldn't be all that successful. Even if he were better than me, it is better to have him swim. It will be more valuable (and entertaining to all avid swimming observers), to watch him swim than to watch me swim. Thus, I end up doing economics. There needs to be specialization. If we all do everything, then we won't get much done. We could try, but do we really want to give up computers, running water, electricity, cheap clothes, reading time, video games, etc? We need specialization.
Parents specialize. And men and women specialize. There are things that women are, in general, better at. I'm not talking about sewing or singing or any stuff that most people have figured out is just a traditional American view of women. I'm talking about empathy and compassion. Motherly things. Patience and understanding. Once again, women do not have a monopoly, but they have a relative advantage over men. Men tend to be stronger, more decisive, more objective. I'm trying to be careful. Having not studied psychology, I won't claim this is completely objective. But I will say these things follow from what I have observed. Men and women are different. It is better for girls to be raised with a woman in their life and boys to be raised with men in their life. And, of course, these traits balance each other. It is ideal to have a man and a woman in each child's life - a mother and father. Obama's scariest goal is to open up adoption to same-sex couples. This idea is going to mess up many children. It will blur and destroy gender lines. Along with marriage and gender lines and an understanding of what a family is goes society. Men and women need to be able to work together in this society. How can they do that if they don't know how a man or a woman should act? How do they know how to respond to sexual urges? How do they know how to treat another with respect if every man and woman is simply seen as an asexual individual? How are successful families created without any guidelines or boundaries?
Now, this won't n happeovernight. It will take years. But it will happen if we allow gender lines and rules to disappear. Society will collapse. There will be many other pressures and problems, of course, as there are now. This will not be the single cause. While sand under a part of the foundation may not cause the building to collapse when the earthquake hits, I would rather the entire foundation be placed upon solid rock. Marriage between a man and a woman is a vital part of that rock for society.
In every society, women are mothers. This is due to obvious biological factors. I believe it is also due to emotional and psychological factors. It is not a bad thing. Mothers do a great job at raising children. Men are fathers. They generally defend and provide for the home while the mother spends her time mothering. This has been the case in virtually every successful society. I'm no anthropologist, but I know of no major civilization in which this wasn't true.
This is true because it works. It is a successful system. From it comes good people who can do the same and raise more good people. This system means society is perpetuated. This is a good thing. Take away a mother and you lose a certain amount of compassion and womanly care. Take away a father and you lose a certain amount of judgment and certitude.
We must have men and women. One without the other is incomplete. We have become too individualistic as a society. A society cannot function without people working together and complementing each other. I'm studying economics. I'm good at it. I like to swim, but I'm not very good at it. Michael Phelps is a great swimmer, but he may be lousy at economics. Even if I would rather swim, I choose economics because that is the only way I'll survive in this world. If I tried to make a living off swimming, I'd probably fail. Michael Phelps does very well focusing on swimming, but if he tried to do economics, he probably wouldn't be all that successful. Even if he were better than me, it is better to have him swim. It will be more valuable (and entertaining to all avid swimming observers), to watch him swim than to watch me swim. Thus, I end up doing economics. There needs to be specialization. If we all do everything, then we won't get much done. We could try, but do we really want to give up computers, running water, electricity, cheap clothes, reading time, video games, etc? We need specialization.
Parents specialize. And men and women specialize. There are things that women are, in general, better at. I'm not talking about sewing or singing or any stuff that most people have figured out is just a traditional American view of women. I'm talking about empathy and compassion. Motherly things. Patience and understanding. Once again, women do not have a monopoly, but they have a relative advantage over men. Men tend to be stronger, more decisive, more objective. I'm trying to be careful. Having not studied psychology, I won't claim this is completely objective. But I will say these things follow from what I have observed. Men and women are different. It is better for girls to be raised with a woman in their life and boys to be raised with men in their life. And, of course, these traits balance each other. It is ideal to have a man and a woman in each child's life - a mother and father. Obama's scariest goal is to open up adoption to same-sex couples. This idea is going to mess up many children. It will blur and destroy gender lines. Along with marriage and gender lines and an understanding of what a family is goes society. Men and women need to be able to work together in this society. How can they do that if they don't know how a man or a woman should act? How do they know how to respond to sexual urges? How do they know how to treat another with respect if every man and woman is simply seen as an asexual individual? How are successful families created without any guidelines or boundaries?
Now, this won't n happeovernight. It will take years. But it will happen if we allow gender lines and rules to disappear. Society will collapse. There will be many other pressures and problems, of course, as there are now. This will not be the single cause. While sand under a part of the foundation may not cause the building to collapse when the earthquake hits, I would rather the entire foundation be placed upon solid rock. Marriage between a man and a woman is a vital part of that rock for society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)