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.

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.

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 Connecticut

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

www.protectmarriage.com

© 2008 ProtectMarriage.com. All Rights Reserved. ProtectMarriage.com is a project of California Renewal (I.D. #1302592) | Contact Us

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.

Calvin and Hobbes

One of the many reasons Calvin and Hobbes is my favorite comic strip.

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.

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?

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.

The Year in Photos

Here is the link to the photos. They were too cumbersome for my blog.

A Moral Argument

Back to the same-sex issue. This is an issue of difference of morals. This is not about skin-color or gender or other natural, physical differences. This is about a moral difference. Same-sex couples must accept the fact that many people, in the fact, the majority of U.S. citizens, have a different set of morals then they do. It is not discriminatory. It is a fact they must accept.

Think of it this way. Say there are no absolute morals (I hope it's clear I do not believe this is true). It is all relative. We each individually choose our set of moral beliefs. So, same-sex couples have theirs, which of course support their practices. Traditional religious groups have theirs, which support only the traditional view of marriage. From a moral relativist standpoint, if same-sex marriage is banned, then same-sex couples are being discriminated against. Yet if same-sex marriage is allowed and religions must accept them (properties are open to the weddings, adoption agencies must adopt to same-sex couples), then religious groups are being discriminated against. One party or the other will have to sacrifice something. This is equality?

Say there is an absolute morality. Now the question is, how do we determine it? How do we decide if same-sex marriage is moral? This is the big question that makes this all so difficult. How do we determine what is moral? Can we turn to God? Many would say no because they do not believe in God. Do we turn to the practices of society for the much of recorded history? Well, there have been different understandings of marriage throughout history. Perhaps more damaging to this attempt is that many practices (slavery being a prime example) which were accepted for millennia but we do not consider moral today.

Not to say that there isn't an answer. I suggest that we look to what will create the most stable and long-lasting society. There is a lot to discuss and think about along these lines. I am not providing a complete argument here. But I believe it is common sense to promote heterosexual marriage. Only a man and a woman can have a child. Girls and boys are fundamentally different, not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Some would argue this. I wonder if they have ever spent time around boys and girls, though. From what I've observed of my nieces and nephews growing up, as well as the little I've read from philosophers and sociologists, it is blatantly obvious that boys and girls are different from the very beginning.

The ideal is that boys will grow up to be men and girls will grow up to be women. "Duh," you may say. But think about a few things. There are unique problems that girls face that two fathers would have difficulty helping their daughter get through. It doesn't matter how many books they have read, they have not experienced it and cannot provide the empathy a mother can provide. There are, of course, many other examples. Boys and girls are fundamentally different and the ideal is that every boy and girl has a man and a woman to guide and direct them through their development.

The fundamental differences in the man and woman, the mother and father, are vital for the children as well. I value highly the compassion my mother has taught me that I could not have learned in the same way from my father. My father has taught me how to be a man and how to deal with certain situations my mother would have difficulty helping me through. I can turn to my father and discuss with him subjects it would be difficult to discuss with my mother. These differences come from the fact that my father is a man - he is like me. My mother is a woman - she is different from me.

Like I said, I don't have time to fully develop these ideas. One more paragraph and I need to wrap up. Some would say that there are many children of single parents who turn out just fine. True, but how many children prefer this situation to having the mother or father they never had? Why should the non-ideal help us determine the ideal? Why should the failings of society determine how we shape our society? Those single parents have done incredible things and should be honored. But does that mean we just need to aim for single-parent households? Though there are successes, I feel it is common sense (common sense is not a very good argument, so research for yourself) from the things I have already written and more that a two parent-household, consisting of a mother and a father, is the ideal. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot accomplish the same thing.

I desire a strong and stable society. Society rests upon the foundation of the family. We should make that foundation as solid and stable as possible. A mother, father, and children is the ideal. There are those who have difficulty meeting this ideal. We should love them and help them. We should not hate them, ridicule them, reject them. But it is not love to weaken that foundation and change the ideal for them.

Who is lying?

No on 8 said

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

• Fact: The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Yet New Jersey ruled that the Methodist church must allow a same-sex couple to be married on its privately owned property. No religion will be required to change its practices? It will not stop here. If so-called anti-discriminatory laws require churches to open up their privately owned property to same-sex marriages, what stops couples from suing to be married within the churches themselves?

Setting aside the fact that this is a same-sex couple, this is private property. The organization, church or not, has the right to rent the facility to whomever they choose. The court cannot decide that.

Network Neutrality

Taking a break from finals, I found this article about Google backing away from a stance for network neutrality. At stake is the traditional rule that Internet carriers - AT&T and such - don't prefer one content provider - Google, Yahoo, etc. - over another. It seems the carriers want content providers to begin carrying some of the cost burdens. And content providers are seeking for fast tracks - they want to pay to have faster connections.

Here are the pros and cons as I see it:

First, the benefits of a pay-for-speed deal means faster connections for the most successful websites - the ones which we all use. Amazon.com, Google, E-bay, will have guaranteed fast connections. I don't know all the logistics, but I think this means that it will be less common for these websites to go slow. Second, it will increase the ability of AT&T and Comcast and other companies to build high-speed networks. Right now, as they carry all the costs, it is difficult and costly to build these networks everywhere they are needed. But if those companies that require high-speed access are paying for it, then the networks will be built more quickly and we will have faster internet. Third, the quality of the internet will increase. As companies compete for bandwidth, they will need to earn more to pay for it. To earn more, they will need to have higher-quality websites that meet the needs of their users better.

On the flip side of that argument, a lot of people may lose their voice. Right now anyone could make a website and have it seen by just about anyone. With a pay-for-speed system, then all those smaller organizations will load slowly and the big companies' websites will load quickly. People will favor the big and neglect the small. There is a possibility costs could go up, as well. As internet companies begin paying for bandwidth, their costs will increase. These higher costs will eventually end up on the bills of the users.

I better get back to studying, so I'm going to wrap this up. My initial conclusion is in favor of pay-for-speed. I'm in favor of a faster, higher-quality internet. Some people claim working for money kills innovation. Hm...an interesting argument considering the most innovative nation in known history has a market (money) based economy. Were our most innovative men working solely for the public good? I could go into history, but why not consider the topic of this article - Google. Incredible innovators, they have made incredible profits. Some may claim it is out of goodwill and wealth comes to those who do good for others, but I flatly and bluntly disagree (think Mother Theresa). Google is in it for the money. And that is not a bad thing, because as long as they abide by the rules (which they seem to be doing), we all end up better off.

Good Math, at least for Wall Street

Ah, Dilbert. Greg Mankiw found some good commentary on the current mess.