Cap 'n Trade (Copied from FB)

The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill passed the house this week. The stated goal of this bill is to limit pollution by capping emissions and putting a price on carbon output. It calls for a decrease in American carbon emissions of 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050.

The way this works is that any company which hits a certain threshold for carbon emissions must buy a permit to do. The initial round of permits will be "sold" and some given out by the government. From there companies that go beyond the set threshold are allowed to buy credits from other companies who are more energy efficient.

This bill has many flaws and will have many costly repercussions.

1.) This legislation will kill jobs. Congress must really think very low of our intellectual capacity if they think we believe that we will end up with jobs in the net positive category. It is self evident that this is a lie. Afterall, I think it is pretty widely accepted (even among liberals) that, relative to government run micro-economies, privatized industries are more efficient. The more efficient a particular company/industry is the greater relative production it creates. The greater production the greater employment.

We could also take this route in analyzing whether this is capable of creating jobs. Ask yourself, is value being added to the economy through this? Without discernible value being added it is inevitable and self evident that this system will be inefficient and thus counterproductive (that is a technical way of saying that we will waste money). All you would need is simple logic and reason to debunk this claim that it will "create" jobs. But if reason is not your strong suit and you need studies and facts to make you believe then so be it.

Spain has a somewhat similar program to what congress is attempting to push through. An independent study was done on the effects of this program with regards to job loss/creation. The results were that it is estimated that 2.2 jobs were killed for every one job created. Admittedly it is not the same system verbatim as our program but do you really trust a government that has a track record of running the following programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Amtrak? All of which are incredibly adept at losing money.

2.) There will be increased cost to consumers. We know it could be bad when even the authors of this bill admit that costs will go up. Effectively speaking, this would be the largest tax increase ever imposed on America. The following estimates were put forth regarding the cost to consumers. The CBO estimated that by 2015 the average increase in energy costs per household would be $175/yr., the EPA estimated an increase of $110/yr. While those numbers don't seem particularly staggering keep in mind who it is that is making those estimates. Do you think either of those parties have an incentive to over shoot the estimate or under shoot the estimate? We also have independent estimates done by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Both of which predict average increases of approximately $1,500/yr. per household. So essentially, for the average person, approximately one entire paycheck would be spent with nothing in return.

Those aren't the only estimates we have. The George C. Marshall Institute also predicts that this legislation would push average electric costs up 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50%, and gasoline prices up 9-14.5% by 2015.

And if all of that weren't enough we can also look at it like this. If any of those estimates are even remotely acurate (and I would guess it's probably somewhere in the middle of the low and the high estimates) then we can honestly say that the demographic that will be hurt the most are the poor. I touched on this with my last note but I'll say it again. For the most part poor families spend a greater percentage of their income on fixed expenses (food, housing, utilities). Knowing that energy costs are going up, and by default food prices will increase, we can say that, relatively speaking, the poor will be affected to a greater degree. Essentially guaranteeing a greater gap in standard of living between the rich and the poor.

I could continue on with how the increased cost would hurt by going over the opportunity cost of lost investment and thus lost growth but I think I'll save that for another day. Just rest assured that an astronimical amount of potential wealth creation will never be realized due to this bill. There would quite literally be a decrease in the quality of life.

3.) Now some might say that all of the negative results are worth it due to lower carbon emissions. But even the stated goal is laughable. Sure, America might decrease it's carbon emissions but what do you think happens to all the manufacturing that will be pushed overseas to places like China, India, and other third world countries. These countries which have even less efficient means of production will be increasing their production as a direct result of this. There will be a net increase in greenhouse gases while at the same time cutting American jobs and giving them to other countries. So even those who believe in the man-made global warming theory should be against this.

In conclusion: Every one of us, regardless of political affiliation should be very wary of this bill.

Oh, and mark my words, when gas prices go up in a few years because of this we will hear all about how the gas companies are "price gouging" and taking advantage of the consumer by driving up prices. When that happens, remember this piece of legislation.

Comment · · Share

• 
  
• Danny Kreps, Dan Hiebert and 2 others like this.
• • 

    Matthew N Jaimie DeBoer I should have been more on top of this and harassed our congressmen/women about this.
    It's not too late too contact our senators though.

    June 28, 2009 at 9:01am · ·
  • 

    Mark DeBoer You didn't mention that the last 3 winners of the tour de france have come from Spain so they must be doing something right... Seriously though, Luke do you have a phone # or link of our Senator/Rep we can ctc to voice our concerns?

    June 28, 2009 at 9:02am · ·
  • 

    Matthew N Jaimie DeBoer Klobuchar http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

    June 28, 2009 at 9:03am · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer For more on this....http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/26/cbo_grossly_underestimates_cost_of_cap_and_trade.html

    June 28, 2009 at 10:03am · ·
  • 

    Dan Hiebert Awesome write-up!! How did you congressman vote?
    http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/27312/

    June 29, 2009 at 10:15am · ·
  • 

    Danielle Berning

    Luke- I'm gonna show this to my mom- I think you would be great friends, although you're more facts when it comes to politics and she's more conspiracy theory... haha... but you'd still be friends. she thinks the gov't is trying to make ame...ricans poorer to be more dependent on them... and their goal is to essentially make us a third world country- but I'm not gonna get into all that....
    this is a very well put together note you wrote. i'm impressed by you for once luke! just kidding.
    and now i'm gonna go stalk amy klobuchar... :)See More

    June 29, 2009 at 5:54pm · ·
  • 

    Mike Neiber Obama is pulling the biggest heist in American history.

    June 30, 2009 at 3:22pm · ·
  • 

    Jeff Stone Wait.... I thought Obama said that 95% of America wouldn't see a tax increase!! And... What if you like waiting in lines at the post office and at the DOT to get your license tabs... Health care will be like that! I wonder if they'll have free coffee available while you wait??

    July 2, 2009 at 7:46am · ·
  • 

    Danny Kreps Keep it up Luke.

    
    

Thoughts on Healthcare part 2 (Copied from FB)

The following has quotes from Amanda's note (a reply to my previous note) on health care. I have put her quotes in quotation marks and my reply just after.

"I read your note and thought I had a comment to make but as my typing got longer and longer I decided to post a response to your healthcare woes this way basically since I discovered facebook limits how long a comment can be. Sorry if it's a little long I have a strong opinion on the topic just a different one then yourself.

To steal from President Obama the senate and congress have great healthcare. He himself and his family have excellent healthcare. You pay for that and even when they get tests that maybe unnecessary or overly cautious they're covered. If we really wanted things to change we would force congress to use medicare."

Or we could not pay for their healthcare in any way, shape, or form.

"The medical industry in this country has a monopoly on the system. That's why when a doctor opens a package of gloves to use on a patient the patient gets charged for the whole box. Pray they don't open a box of something more expensive."

Amanda, this could very well be a very short and easy rebuttal as your premise itself is off. An industry cannot be a monopoly; only a company can be a monopoly. That being said, I know what you mean. The heath insurance industry is controlled by a very few large company’s. However, this is not indicative of a market made monopoly. In fact, it is through gov’t intervention that we have such concentrated power. In a true free market system a monopoly could truly not exist (outside of specialized products, which healthcare is not). If I’m mistaken then please give me one single example of a company that has obtained monopoly status while acting without gov’t intervention.

"So you have to wait a little longer in a waiting room because your illness or ailment is not knowingly life threatening. There is this beautiful virtue called patients that we Americans don't seem to hold dear. But isn't waiting better then being in excruciating amount of pain with no option to relieve unless maybe they use illegal substances or foreign meds that dosages aren't properly regulated?"

I’m not sure exactly where you are going with this? Saying Americans are not patient is a broad generalization that does nothing but pollute the discussion. I would argue that foreign meds should be allowed. If we wanted to take that risk we should be allowed. Mark my words, the FDA has done far more damage in regulating the drug industry than it has done good. For example, let’s say a pharmaceutical company comes to the FDA with a new product. They’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars developing this product. This drug may help 99 out of 100 people but the 100th person has some negative side effect. Now put yourself in the FDA’s position. What would give you incentive as the regulatory representative to give that drug the green light? On the one hand you could say yes and risk having the first person who takes the drug have some sort of negative repercussion. If you did this it’s likely the FDA would be red in the face. And in a politically motivated system the last thing you want is negative publicity. Or you, as the regulatory rep could tell the company to go back to the drawing board until there is absolutely no risk. It seems like a pretty easy choice. If you say no then there is no one to point out the potential positive gains as your decision is just chalked up to “protecting the public.” If you say no then what happens to the pharmaceutical company? They have to go back and spend thousands more on R&D, pushing up the cost of the final product.

It is not possible to determine the damage that the FDA has done to how nations health. Not only have the voluntarily kept potentially life saving drugs off the market but they have pushed up the prices of current drugs beyond the limit of affordability for many.

" In Canada yes you have to wait for non-urgent surgeries like knee replacement surgery but it's better then Americans who hobble in pain because there healthcare says it's unnecessary or they are afraid of being in huge barely manageable debt or worse losing their home. A woman I know of in a program for helping people who are homeless get work had ended up losing her home, her car, and other things because she was an uninsured widowed 50 year old who had to have emergency open heart surgery. I never asked her but I think she would of been happy to wait in a waiting room for beta blockers before that."

Of course, you say nothing of the risk she assumed by not pursuing a career in which there was stability and financial stability. But of course, we are all entitled to whatever we want, right? Perhaps she should have rented instead of owning a home and spent the difference on a high deductible, catastrophic insurance package. I know, that sounds very cold but it’s the truth.

"My brother fainted a few years ago, which had never happened before. He was encouraged to go to the hospital. He thought since he has health insurance might as well to be safe. They hooked up a heart monitor and told him he was fine. Young people just faint sometimes the doctor said, that will be $350 after insurance."

How is this consequential? Earlier you stated that it’s worth it to have all the extra tests and procedures done but in this paragraph you seem to imply that the doctor and the hospital is in the wrong. Which is it?

"One of the major problems is lobbyist. The pharamasuitical companies can afford to spend billions of dollars lobbying just because they save so much more than charging us less."

You don’t say why this is a problem (although I agree, any sort of lobbying is dangerous). That being said, I would like to know how this is the cause of our healthcare system? But if you really want to get rid of lobbying…please refer back to my reply on the FDA. Get rid of the FDA and you will get rid of lobbying by those companies, for the most part that is. There would be no need. (For more on the FDA please read Free To Choose by Milton Freidman.)

"The system is broken and nobody wants to put there neck out to try and change it. politicians are reluctant to do anything. They always want to pass the buck onto the next guy, afraid they might not get reelected. Procrastination will bite are ass off eventually. It's no small wonder how many political official after leaving office go get high paying jobs with these industries.

FOX news is suggesting that Obamas getting rid of private insurance. That's a misconception. You will have the option to stay with private insurance. What this does though create competition and that brings prices down."

Here is a conundrum. Earlier you complain about monopoly within the health care system. Yet here we have the proposal of a literal monopoly creating player in the health care industry. There are many arguments against this “public option” but I choose to point to the proverbial slippery slope of government control. I summarize my feelings of a potential gov’t run health care system with the following that I read recently (where? I can’t remember at the moment), “Isn’t it grand that we will have an agency in health care from the same government that has produced the efficiency of the postal service, the financial losses of Amtrak, and the compassion of the IRS?”

" Out of all industrial countries America has one of the highest infant death mortality rates. We come in last in a competition I would hope to win. Part of the reasoning is because lack adequate healthcare. I've been to France, I have friends from there, let me tell you there free health care is amazing. They are healthy and fit. The French have such high life expectancy that a few hundred elderly people die every summer because their very aged and frail bodies can't take the high heat in Paris. In the world America has one of the highest infant death mortality rates. Granted the European systems are flawed. But we can see their problems so why can't we work to create something better with the options of both Private and Public Health care. That should be a benefit to both systems."

This is a fatal flaw in your analysis. There are so many variables which differentiate us from France, or us from Canada, or us from any country for that matter. This will sound a bit mean but I find it simplistic and lazy to point to a high infant mortality rate and say that it is caused by the current system. It may very well be causal but you can’t just say it and expect it to be true. In order to truly compare two different systems you would need to control for all possible variables. Can you do that? No, you can’t. So thus we can only use theoretical analysis from our current against a potential system with all the same variables and inputs.

Look at it like this. You say that the French are fit because they have “free (again, that is a misnomer)” health care. That free health care is the cause and the effect is the French being fit. You see correlation and assume causation. Without verifiable evidence to prove the cause/effect relationship one cannot use the argument. It is analogous to this. Using that logic we could say that our economy didn’t go into a recession until I graduated college. Since we are using the correlation=causation reasoning we could say that we are in a recession because I graduated from college. I know, it’s preposterous but I use an extraordinary example to disprove the logic behind your reasoning.

"We get charged for the uninsured when they get seriously injured. We need a way to have preventative medicine. If it's too expensive (especially without insurance) to get a checkup, by the time you go to the doctor it's going to be and cost a lot worse."

I’ll agree with you on this one. We do need a way to promote preventive care. I suggest we do away, or perhaps faze out, medicare. Insurance companies currently have little incentive to promote preventive care as by the time people start needing the bulk of their health care they are on medicare.

"So how to pay for it?
I don't understand why people get so hung up on buzz words like "socialism". We don't live in the cold war and don't need to be afraid of communism any more. It's only meant to try and scare people. To me socialism basically means helping people out. I don't like to know that people go hungry and sleep under bridges in the wealthiest country in the world, It shames me. Sure some choose to live on the street but because of drugs, alcoholism, mental illness, but a lot less that you think. It's had to clime out of poverty when theirs nothing to grab onto."

Socialism is just helping out? You left out the fact that you want to “just help out” using another persons money. This is a morally bankrupt viewpoint. It’s so easy to pay Paul using Peter’s money, isn’t it? Now, if we asked you to forfeit the money you spent on going to France in order to help out the homeless what would have been the response?

"But as Americans our system of greed and always wanting more forces us to look away and clutch tightly to what's MINE."

Greed, now there is a buzz word for you. I have heard of how it is greed that caused the collapse of the economy last year. Sure, no one has yet told us exactly how this happened but it sounds nice, doesn’t it? We can blame a straw man for the collapse and use it as propaganda to promote our worldview.

"They plan to try and raise taxes on people making more than $350,000 a year. AHHHH SOCIALISM!!!! It's scary man, get those bunny slippers. From your experience I think it's safe to devise that you don't have great healthcare and you are not in the 2 percentile of multimillionaires that pay the highest taxes. Their raising taxes on the wealthy back to the same tax rate it was in the 1960 under Kennedy. What's so wrong with that? I usually like to keep this out of my arguments but I am going to throw in a little life of Jesus bio here. Jesus got very angry and disappointed the rich who tried to horde their money while others were in distress. He was the champion of the poor. "

I would advise against using Jesus as a tool for your promotion of socialism. Yes, he told us, love our neighbors as ourselves. However, don’t misinterpret that as him saying, “Force your neighbor to love your other neighbor as much as you love your other neighbor.” Rather, he instructs us to EACH love our neighbor as ourselves.

"We covered U.S. health care is a problem in one of my sociology classes and why citizens don't want to tax the rich they say, "I don't want to have to pay that much in taxes.... if I ever make that much money." It's Americans system of greed and entitlement to hold to what is mine."

So essentially what I hear you saying is that your value system is greater than others? What qualifies this point of view?

"I personally am a worry and want to rule out all things to the best of my advantage. Yes it appears that your wife was experiencing kidney stones but what if she's not? Persistent kidney stones can be a sign of the gallbladder not functioning right meaning there is a bigger problem. Maybe the gallbladder needs to be removed or rarely, granted in order to have rarely there can't be never, it could mean cancer in the gallbladder or bile duct. I am big believer that since we have life saving/helping technology it's better to check so one doesn't have to risk regret. Yes a doctor may want to avoid malpractice suite by encouraging an ultrasound but in medschool he was hopefully taught all the possible causes of certain symptoms. Sometimes we trust our guts and we are right but should our guts reside in our wallet?

All I ever hear are negatives not solutions people are afraid but no one seems to have any other ideas. The status quo has failed, time to move on. I know the dark but I prefer the light which gives me the foolishness to hope."

I know this is long but I’m almost done. Here ya go Amanda, you asked for a solution and I will give you one. I am fully with the liberals in that our current system is broken. We spend more per person in both public and private dollars than anywhere in the world. Of course, I see the cause of this as much more than “greed” on the part of pharmaceutical companies. First off, we have drug costs, which I covered in an earlier paragraph. Secondly, we have malpractice lawsuits. I’ve heard the counter argument that malpractice insurance premiums make up for only 1% of health care costs. However, we need to look much deeper to see the true cost of our easy liability policy. As you alluded to, doctors are forced to often times suggest and perform mostly useless procedures and tests just to protect themselves. This does not show up in malpractice costs but it can’t be argued that it is indeed a cost to the consumer.

We also have entry barriers for new insurance companies, decreasing competition and supply. Decreased supply equals greater cost. Simple? Yes, but it’s a simple economic law and it applies here.

Take away the employer tax deduction for health insurance and give it to the individual. This puts the decision and choice of insurance package/company in the hands of the consumer. They know much better than some third party what is right for them. This along with allowing for new entrants into the sector would spread out the so called “power” of the insurance companies.

Get rid of regulation, gov’t control, third party payers, and ease up on the malpractice suits and we will have a much cheaper, more efficient, and more competitive (competition breeds excellence!) health care system.

"Quote from Brazilian Monk HelderCamara
"When I feed the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist""

Quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."

Comment · · Share

• 
  
• 
  
• • 

    David Jungers I couldn't agree with you more! Luke you should really consider writing for a political website or something. Good stuff.

    July 27, 2009 at 10:03pm · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer Thanks David! I appreciate the kind words.

    July 27, 2009 at 10:19pm · ·
  • 

    Kellie Colberg Yeah, Luke, I agree with David. Although you can frustate me to no end, you back your words up with facts, and are very eloquent! I almost agree with all you wrote....that is pretty good, wouldn't you say?

    July 27, 2009 at 10:35pm · ·
  • 

    Corey A. Purkat

    love it. luke, you need to start a blog. ill be a weekly correspondent. i dont have as much info/statistics as you do, but i read an article in the WSJ today that said a major firm doing research on the "how-many-people-are-uninsured" topic..., are "slashing their initial prediction of 108 million to a much lower number of uninsured individuals." just at a glance i thought to myself, that leaves almost 2/3 of Americans that have insurance through their employers or some other form of it. shame on them for providing for themselves and their families, so they can get the job that has the employee sponsored insurance? like i said, i dont know all the facts and i'd love to get more. i heard another lecture on NPR today too that was very insightful for both ways. oh, and go twins.See More

    July 27, 2009 at 11:06pm · ·
  • 

    Kenneth Mitchell Great response, Luke. You obviously got a good education somewhere!

    July 28, 2009 at 3:08am · ·
  • 

    Mark DeBoer How can you know so much about politics, but not know what Wall Drug is?

    July 28, 2009 at 7:53am · ·
  • 

    Benjamin N Nicole DeBoer This is what is great about America...two people free to voice their opinions. Luke, you truly have a place in politics or even better, education. Like Jason Lewis...a voice of reason. Amanda, a applaud you passion but your thinking is off. If you read this take what Luke has said and mull it over, it all makes sense and if you examine your thoughts and beliefs through the the lens of the Holy Spirit you will see free market principles falls right in line with how Christ taught and lived his life.

    July 28, 2009 at 3:04pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese

    ‎...yawn...still at it Luke...regurgitating bumper sticker libertarianism and projecting the virtues of laissez faire economics through the distorted lenses of Social Darwinism...disappointing. How easily these sheeple are impressed with di...me-store blogic....and a few Critical Thinking 101 terms...(you could even say nice Ad Hominem argument Ben, and thats Latin!)...it was also nice how you edified Amanda before mocking her (how O'Reilly'ian of you, omg i just invented a sweet term)...ego masturbation is not very becoming Lucas. What do you think should have been done with Ma' Bell and Standard Oil? The Triangle Shirtwaist Company? When did the Govt. intervene? What would Jeshua Ben Joseph think of all this (I bet he was all about the bottom line!)See More

    July 28, 2009 at 8:32pm · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer Wow Ben, how incredibly insightful and logical your analysis is. I see you've progressed quite a bit since I've last heard from you.
    
    Please, endow us with more of your great wisdom.
    
    ...yep, yawn indeed....

    July 28, 2009 at 9:51pm · ·
  • 

    Kenneth Mitchell Wow, Luke...your friend Ben...constipation of thought and diarea of words!

    July 28, 2009 at 9:54pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese

    hahaha...I knew you'd like thatLukey...so do, tell me about monopolies, John D. Rockefeller, and government intervention.... I am not familiar with the christian private school version of history......
    
    p.s. Ken didn't you forget to pick up t...hat copy of Culture Warrior during your last trip to Wal Mart?See More

    July 28, 2009 at 11:10pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese p.s.s. What is diarea? Is that Troglodyte for "the shits"? Your spell check is constipated. People in glass cathedrals shouldn't throw stones.

    July 29, 2009 at 4:16am · ·
  • 

    Kenneth Mitchell Oh no...another typical political technique...attack the messengers spelling and avoid the message! It's okay to mis-spell now days...it's called texting!

    July 29, 2009 at 7:44am · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer Ken, our friend Ben is a one trick pony as you'll come to see. Only insults come from his mouth.

    July 29, 2009 at 12:09pm · ·
  • 

    Benjamin N Nicole DeBoer I don't know much about this stuff but I'm sure that if stupid girls would stop coming to the ER for a pregnancy test it would save alot of money (not their money) and stop wasting alot of people's time. Go to the freakin dollar store really!? Maybe that would reform health care right there.

    July 29, 2009 at 12:29pm · ·
  • 

    David Kučera Good debate. Bicknese should take it down a notch I think.

    July 29, 2009 at 1:13pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese successful troll successful
    
    (this is true Jesse, very intuitive....would you like to get coffee sometime?)

    July 29, 2009 at 1:59pm · ·
  • 

    Jesse Erickson if the pineapples involved. count me in.

    July 29, 2009 at 2:07pm · ·
  • 

    Benjamin N Nicole DeBoer Here's the common theme...Luke stating fact after fact and Ben giving nothing but challenges and insults. I would like Ben to give a little insight rather than the typical Liberal tactic of stating peoples beliefs are wrong but failing to give logical explanations or facts backing their own belief.

    July 29, 2009 at 6:49pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese

    Ben, I could go through and fact check/ counter starting with this statement :"If I’m mistaken then please give me one single example of a company that has obtained monopoly status while acting without gov’t intervention."
    Um... Standard Oil...
    I was not debating....i was trolling for troglogytes(and boy did i catch a few)
    I am not going to waste my time with a pointless game of economic theory.
    The problem with economic theory is economic theory.
    
    typical liberal tactic, typical conservative tactic...blah blah...network news bantor....spare me.See More

    July 29, 2009 at 7:03pm · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer

    We are not dealing with economic theory Ben. We are dealing with whether or not any business free of intervention has ever fit into the parameters of a defined law. No theory, just a simple evaluation of the facts.
    
    FYI, I think you meant to ...spell it "troglodytes." No big deal though, spelling apparently isn't too important here, right?See More

    July 29, 2009 at 8:09pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese

    Um your concerns with healthcare have everything to do with economic theory....of course i could see you were talking about the defintion of monopoly as the "law" sees it....Standard oil was a whore beast monopoly whether the law officially... agreed or not...the law was fucked then....just simple reality.Would you like to debate what the word is is?
    
    and yes, in my haste I pulled a Ken.See More

    July 29, 2009 at 9:49pm · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer So let's pretend you could make antitrust law. What would it be, since you find the current law so inadequate?

    July 29, 2009 at 10:12pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese

    YES!That is a good question...and now we are getting somewhere! Would another or a new law prevent a corporation from crushing small businesses or exploiting communities or workers....probably not, the business would buy its way out (pay fi...nes) or find a loophole with a powerful legal team....laws don't seem to prevent crime, only punish perpetrators....Why do we now(still) have "businesses that are too big to fail".....I feel this a cultural problem....stemming from wanton materialism, absence of personal responsibility, and a general lack of awareness/care as to the consequences of our superficial consumerism....we don't care where our food/goods come from, only that they are cheap and convenient so that they won't prevent us from from scoring that new boat, moving into that McMansion, or buying the wife some new tits. We have no sense of modesty or restraint. Of course the breaking of the manufactured credit bubble may slap us into reality for a short time, but i am not hopeful.See More

    July 29, 2009 at 11:26pm · ·
  • 

    Ben Bicknese I worry about these things that no law can fix. Our collective values. Why did we abandon small businesses, the local ma and pa stores....the local farmers...that is what was sustainable and gave us a sense of community....but we junked it for what---Wal Marts filled with crap from China made by slave labor....What do we value?

    July 29, 2009 at 11:45pm · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer

    ‎"Standard oil was a whore beast monopoly..."
    
    "...exploiting communities or workers."
    
    "..stemming from wanton materialism, absence of personal responsibility, and a general lack of awareness/care as to the consequences of our superficial cons...umerism..."
    
    These are all empty platitudes...filler...mostly meaningless.
    
    Who is exploiting who? What is exploiting? The dictionary says it is, "to employ to the greatest possible advantage." Don't employees likewise do this to business? I know I'm trying to employ my talents to the greatest possible advantage in my workplace. Or perhaps we should use another definition. "to use selfishly for one's own ends" This is another thing that every voluntary employee does on a daily basis. It can't be argued. The mere act of showing up for work proves that this. So we could really say that both parties in an employment agreement are exploiting each other.See More

    July 30, 2009 at 4:48pm · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer

    So who gets to choose these "collective values"? Do I get my own say in this or not? Probably not since I'm a troglodyte, huh? It's only a "collective value" if it's one you yourself are happy with. This might work if we were all robots.
    
    "......that is what was sustainable"
    
    There are many things that used to be sustainable. Outhouses for example, I'm sure at some point in history they were cutting edge.
    
    It's humorous that you (and many other liberals at that) call conservatives "trolls" and "cavedwellers." While you think I AM living in the past it seems that it is you who WANTS to live in the past.See More

    July 30, 2009 at 4:53pm · ·
  • 

    Mandy Wallace

    Wow I just got a chance to look at this! Thanks for your speedy reply Luke I will clarify and counter somethings when I have a chance, which will not be very soon. Keep in mind I wrote this response at in an hour at four in the morning when... I was suppose to be figuring out how you delete a facebook page, I am good at avoiding the task at hand.
    - Btw I really like Ben Bicknese, keep pushing each other!
    -Bj I love you man but Luke and I are not going to change each others minds on this topic. I was only hoping to get out of this a better understanding of someone who thinks and feels differntly then I do and what drives them to that.See More

    August 1, 2009 at 3:55pm · ·
  • 

    Luke De Boer

    Well Amanda, here's a problem. You say that we are not going to change each others minds. A very absolute statement, I must say.
    
    I will admit that I am open to having my mind changed. I'm waiting for a just, logical, moral, and rational rea...son. As of yet I have not heard one that fits all of that criteria.
    
    And here we are led to believe that it is the liberals who are "open-minded."See More

    
    

Hypocrisy

So few things irritate me quite like hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a bane on the legitimacy of one's ideals. When discussing touchy issues such as religion and politics it is so important to be consistent. One truly only has his reputation to lean on when attempting to persuade another into their own point of view.

This is the exact reason why so many non-Christians despise Christianity. They see those who call themselves "Christians" acting in very "unChristian" ways. Such is the wisdom of the Bible when it states that we should not be lukewarm but rather either hot or cold. It is not entirely for our own sakes that we should be either hot or cold but also for the sake of others.

Whether fair or not we all have labels hanging over our heads in the eyes of others. If someone see's me as a Christian and I am not acting Christ-like, it will quite possibly forever taint my legitimacy as a Christian in that person's eyes. I could be the most pious, God fearing man alive from that moment on but the non-Christian will still bring to mind my unChristian ways.

It is for this reason that I believe it is time for conservatives to drop the outrage over the mosque near ground-zero.

Private property rights.

How will those conservatives calling for the government to block this mosque being built ever be taken seriously again when speaking about the fundamental right of private property? How will we be able to tell those who oppose us that they are morally wrong for infringing on our rights if we are so willing to do the same to someone else. This is hypocrisy and it is wrong.

There is more to be covered on this topic, however, I just do not have the energy at the moment to tackle it.

Attack on the unskilled

The minimum wage.

Having worked in the restaurant industry for a large portion of my working life I have heard first hand every argument in the book for the legitimacy of increases in the minimum wage. For the sake of this post we will ignore the obvious issues regarding the morality of the coercion (i.e. gun to the head) on small business owners.

There is always really only one major argument in the favor of a rise in the minimum wage: to protect the poor and unskilled. It is theorized that since poor people are currently making minimum wage, hence their being poor. Since these people are making minimum wage they must then be assumed to be unskilled. It is then theorized that if we allow the market to dictate wages these people will make ever less money, resulting in a larger pool of poor and unskilled workers. If one just took that and didn't look into the logic and reason of the theory, one might assume that to be true. In fact, that seems to be what most people are prone to do (especially our legislators, both on the left and on the right).

However, we must examine whether any of these assumptions are actually true. After all, the very coercion that we are using is based on the premise that it (the minimum wage) is good for the poor, and that to aid the poor and destitute truly is the goal of gov't (in the eyes of the liberal left). So I suggest we do as Ayn Rand so often suggested, "check the premise."

First off, are the majority of poor people making minimum wage? This is difficult to ascertain as the actual group of individuals both currently considered "poor" and those making minimum wage is an elastic number, that is, these numbers are constantly changing. However, we can approximate. According to this article, as of 2005, 8% of service workers (that is, primarily restaurant workers) were making minimum wage, compared with less than 1% of workers in other professions. I'm unsure as to what the aggregate percentage of total workers making minimum wage is, but just to be safe let's say it is 2%. Now, according to this article, the percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty is approximately 13%. Now, admittedly, a greater proportion of the poor are going to be making minimum wage than those who are not poor (I don't accept that the entire number of people making minimum wage fall into the category of poor because I know that I personally made minimum wage as a server for many years yet made a very decent living through my total compensation, i.e. tips). So just for kicks, let's assume that every person making minimum wage is poor and that every unemployed person is also considered poor (which is also untrue and at the time of these statistics the unemployment rate was roughly 6%). So accounting for both those assumptions the worst case scenario is that less than 1/3 of the working poor were making minimum wage. Undoubtedly many more of these made more than minimum wage after additional compensation as most of minimum wage jobs are service jobs. So it is safe to say that a very small proportion of poor people are making minimum wage at one particular time. So that premise is shot down.

Now the premise that those making minimum wage are unskilled. I cannot really argue this one. Relatively speaking, I would accept the idea that they are unskilled. But does raising the minimum wage help these people become more skilled? According to several studies by Hashimoto, Leighton and Mincer, and Ragan, minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training. This would seem to be counter-intuitive. If you were forced to pay unskilled labor a higher wage, why would you not train them so you can get greater production out that labor? The answer lies in a study by Robert Hall in 1982 in which he concludes that minimum wage causes increased turnover among those making minimum wage. So there is the answer, no one will pay the unskilled for additional training at higher wages because the very tactic that created the higher wages is directly causing turnover. Or more simply put, why train an unskilled worker at higher wages for another employers benefit?

So really the best reason for a rise in minimum wage is to increase the total wages of the working poor then. However, even that premise seems to be the opposite of reality when it comes to minimum wage and minimum wage hikes. I was personally able to find over 15 independent studies proving that minimum wage and minimum wage hikes cause total unemployment to rise and, even more distressing considering the goal of minimum wage, unemployment to rise among the unskilled, among teenagers and young adults, and among minorities. Now ask yourself, which demographics are most highly correlated with poverty in America? The answer is teenagers, young adults, and minorities. So here we have government interfering in the labor market in the name of altruism, in the name of the poor and helpless. The result, the very thing that is supposed to help the poor is making them worse off.

That's not even the end of it. According to a couple of studies, most notably by Adams in 1987, minimum wage and rises in minimum wage cause inflation (all other variables remaining constant). Now who is hurt most by inflation? Is it the the rich, who are able to absorb inflationary pressures, especially among core inflation, with their substantial discretionary income? Or is it the poor who spend a greater proportion of their income on core needs such as food, shelter, and transportation? For example, let's say person A is rich. Person A currently spends 50% of his income on basic needs, or "core" needs. Let's say this amounts to $100k/yr on core needs. So this person is taking home $200k/yr. Just for simplicities sake, let's say there is a 1% increase in inflation. That means person A's core expenditures are now $101k/yr. It is unlikely person A even notices. Next you have person B, who is poor. This person spends 100% of his income on "core" needs. He makes $15k/yr but he also spends $15k/yr. With a 1% increase in core inflation he now needs $15,150/yr. That person really felt it.

So minimum wage can truthfully be said to hurt the poor to a greater extent than it does the rich.

So with elections coming up this November, which of the options that you are considering would encourage a minimum wage hike?

Think about this, those of you considering either Tarryl Clark for Rep or Margaret Anderson-Kelliher for Governor.

The Economics of Bottled Water

Last year American's spent over $15 billion on bottled water. I've often heard how stupid this is that we are spending so much money on the most plentiful natural resource on the planet. In fact, the article related to above states, "It acknowledges our demand for instant gratification, our vanity, our token concern for health. Its packaging and transport depend entirely on cheap fossil fuel."

Perhaps true but perhaps it's much more simple than that. Perhaps we just dislike risk. Every purchase is a case of risk vs. reward. As a kid no one wanted a huffy bike, so we were willing to pay a premium (by we, I of course mean my parents) for a different, "higher quality" brand. There was less risk in this. They were both made of the same metal, both had the same components, but one could have made us look "uncool" or, as I undoubtedly attempted to persuade my parents, the one was of greater quality than the other. You see, we didn't want to risk lower quality or personal gratification just to save a few bucks. How does this apply to a bottle of water? Well, I buy water for 1 of 3 reasons and I suspect most other people do as well.

1.) It is cold if I buy it from the gas station. I am paying a premium to always have access to a luxury. (Think of how many jobs this is creating, right?!?! J/k btw, isn't this an all too common defense for any type of spending? Well, it's creating jobs. It's ok when the gov't spends because it's "creating jobs" but when someone with money wants to buy something deemed unnecessary by the public it's that they are being greedy. Can't have it both ways, libs). So what is the premium for having my water cold? I don't know, it doesn't matter. In fact, it's probably a floating number dependent upon other variables (which leads me onto another political tangent. This is a prime example of why price fixing by the gov't doesn't work, because variables change. Some days it might be warmer outside so I want that cold water, some days I might be feeling more frugal. My point? economic engineering cannot work in the long run.)

2.) Prestige. That's right, I admit it, I buy bottled water sometimes because it is positively accepted among society. Sometimes I have even splurged on Fiji water just for my own vanity.

3.) Quality. We know what we are getting in bottled water. Some of us even know the different tastes of the different brands. Do you know what the water out of the drinking fountain at the SA down the street tastes like or the water out of the sink at your place of employment? Neither do I. In fact, I don't want to know because I can limit the risk of tasting bad water for a small fee (the purchase price).

All three of these reasons have to do with limiting risk. I have a near risk-less source of water available to me for a small premium. Not sure what information that gives us but it doesn't make it less true.

John 8:7

Barack Obama is attempting to show his concern for fiscal responsibility.

Next we'll have Bill Clinton lecturing us on responsibility in a marriage, or Bernie Madoff telling us how ethics in the business place should be interpreted.