Gold Standard Nonsense

Just read perhaps one of the best reasons that the Gold Standard doesn't work. As economies grow and the money supply is fixed you would have to see a deflation in wages. From 2000 to 2012 wages would have had to drop from 13.75 an hour to 3.45 an hour. Can you imagine any sort of worker taking a 10 dollar per hour pay cut?

Click here for the link.

Romney Fail

Paul Krugman does a good job showing the hypocrisy of the Romney/Paul ticket. I thought this would be an interesting intellectually stimulating campaign where the lines of government would be honestly redrawn to optimize government, but instead Mitt Romney has given up any attempt to stand on firm ground. Check out the Krugman piece here.

Daily Show Does the Convention Proud

My opinion was that The Daily Show hasn't done too much great work over the past week, but last night's episode really blew me away. Check it out here.

Deradicalization Techniques & Hans Scharff Info

here are a few links for deradicalization papers and information as well as the book on Hans Scharff:

The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe
Wiki article on Hans Scharff


Articles on modern Deradicalization:
Article on Deradicalization # 1      -You have to download the PDF.
Article on Deradicalization #2



If you haven't seen my podcast on Hans Scharff you can see it here.

Apocalypse Now

Are we living in a spiraling death cycle as many would have you believe?

I advise you to watch that link posted above if you're interested, but I fall firmly in the camp that of worried non-believers in global catastrophic events anytime soon. For years and years scientists have been telling us "the sky is falling!", but it hasn't. Well, that's debatable as the Great Depression and both World Wars may disagree. What I'm talking about is something of that nature. One that is apocalyptic in scale and destroys our way of life as we know it.

Now, to be an economist, believe in the free market, and think that it will suddenly completely pull our feet out from underneath us is foolish. It may have a hiccup, and the market may even seem to completely collapse, but there are very few ways that it could completely give out. New oil reserves are constantly being found, tapped, or expanded. Green energy technology is pushing forward at breakneck speed, nuclear war is unlikely, and the most pressing problem, the debt, is unlikely to kill millions. The US is able to pay the debt back and we have no current problems doing that bit by bit. Furthermore, companies don't feel afraid to lend to the US and that is reflected in incredibly low interest rates. Politicians are beginning to try to hash out solutions (a long problem) and the government doesn't look like defaulting any time soon. The economy would have to get better before interest rates went up (because of better investments) and that would mean future debt would simply become more expensive. That would also make the current debt easier to pay off with a larger income from taxes. Certainly, if the government today defaulted on all of its debt the nation would be put into a crisis, but that won't happen. Anything else is to make a critical mistake about the market.

The Word Feminazi

I hate and love the word Feminazi. I hate that it was created by Rush Limbaugh. I hate that it is often a term used to beat women into a second class position. I hate that it's been used to attack women from Gloria Steinem to Michelle Obama. And yet the term has stuck in my brain as something that does describe a certain theme of the modern American zeitgeist. The women's movement (God bless them) can roughly be divided into two camps: the camp that welcomes both men and women to explore and understand sexuality of both genders and the camp that has its doors locked with a sign saying "no boys allowed". This is the group that demonizes men and turns them into monsters.

It is not that some men don't deserve to be demonized; basically 100 percent of rapes are carried out by men, most murders are carried out by men, and both the political and the financial sectors of society are dominated by men. Still, to carry assumptions to another person based on statistics is wrong.  It is not that women shouldn't be smart and go out with groups at night, or that women should put their faith entirely in the hands of some stranger. I just don't like it when it is proclaimed (sometimes in front of me) that "men are pigs".

Let me also say that I have never met a feminazi. I have no friends, enemies, or acquaintances that preach this. Even books such as The End of Men by Hanna Rosin comments more how the differences that are present in women lead them to do better in the current environment. However, the simple phrase "The End of Men" reminds me of this second camp. Clearly it's not the End of Men - and it will never be the end of men - as none of Hanna Rosin's numbers have hit zero percent for male participation and it would be ludicrous to suppose that they ever will. Some boys do well in a "girl's world". Perhaps young boys do better when they have a more active system of learning that doesn't pin them to a desk. I've always been one that has to walk while talking. It gives some of my friends strong callouses on their feet, but studies do show that male mental activity is higher when engaged while learning. Perhaps young men should be taught while on the treadmill? I grew up listening to history while riding my bike around town and it has turned into a lifelong passion.

The debate between what is feminist sexism, what are facts, what is male sexism, and what are the correct differences between males and females. Differences in the brain, body, and thought process are all there, but most of these are just averages or trends and do not justify the individual cases. The word Feminazi, in the end, is a worthless word used mostly by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. However, while nobody I know is an out and out Feminazi by saying that women are better than men, there is a tendency to make judgments over individuals by what group they are in.


If you want to hear a fantastic debate on the subject from NPR: click here and then watch the full audio and not the broadcast version.

Chick-fil-A and Fascism

So I was doing some research for my podcast yesterday on fascism, and I saw in the Google search list a link to a story on Chick-fil-A and fascism. I was quite perplexed how fascism and Chick-fil-A had anything to do with one another, but it was one in the morning and I wanted to finish up the podcast, so I didn't read the article. Today I saw that same article posted by one of my good friends (and a very jolly, good, well-mannered person), so I thought I'd indulge in a little look.

The article states two things:
1. Denying a business a license to operate for a political belief is fascism.
2. Moreover, a community pressuring people not to go to a business is fascism.

Both of these points are absurd with the second one being horribly out of touch with modern political lobbying. But let me first say what I agree with him on, as common ground should be the first thing two parties try to find instead of finding what they disagree on. When he says that denying a business a licence is fascism (which he never actually shows to be true and I very much doubt), I think he means "bad" and not really "fascism" as fascism would imply something very different from what he says. I agree that would be "bad" as political entities could weigh in on certain political issues and punish those with opposing views. It would perhaps be something a fascist state would do, but so could a communist state, a democratic socialist state, or even a liberal state such as the USA if a call was made. Let me give an example: you have a deli that gives money to Al Qaeda or an Irish Pub giving money to the IRA. They are supporting a political view, but that view happens to be labeled as "terrorist" in nature and therefore the US government could close down the business and even jail you. So, in conclusion, Chick-fil-A is not Al Qaeda or anywhere close to that, so rejecting a business licence is "bad", but not fascism.

Now for point two. We, as consumers, have one way to influence the market: our money. If we don't like the actions a business takes (oil spills, corruption in Mexico, libor fixing, etc) we don't buy their product. For instance if I don't like the effect that South American ranching has on the Amazon I cut back on meat. If I don't appreciate the ways that diamonds proceeds are often used to fund African militias that use child soldiers I don't buy conflict diamonds. If I don't like what a company does I don't use it. When Chick-fil-A uses its profits to influence politics I have every right to stop using that product and to tell my friends not to use that product. A classic historical example of a group using its economic muscles was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Now would that be "fascism" or even the act of a "fascist" party or state? When Chick-fil-A gives 2 million dollars to anti-gay lobbying and political groups I have the right to freely decide where my money goes and to say what I want about that product. Fascism......psh..........

Ideally, this could all be made better if America had a split between business and politics. Businesses can influence politics for their own profit to create solutions that might be pro-business, but anti-market. Just as the US has a split between church and state, we today need a split between business and state. The only forms of campaign finance should come from individuals. I could care less what Chick-fil-A's CEO thinks as long as he gets me some good chicken. However, when business begins to interfere with politics and starts to determine my political rights I don't get too happy about it.


Oh, and if you haven't listened to my two podcasts on Fascism you can view them on Itunes or here.