What's goin' on...: May 2005

The Jackson Jury is on its knees thanking God

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7993269/

Jerk

http://g.msn.com/0MNAU39/1?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7998862/&&PS=69716&SU=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032092/&HL=Music%20store%20sells%2011%20organs%20to%20sick%20woman&CM=News%20BColumnBelowAutoBox1&CE=2

Summer Break and Today in History

Well, folks, I've returned from school for the summer, and I will be very busy with my summer job, so my posting will be fairly limited until the end of August. Hope everyone enjoys this wonderful season as much as I will.

Now, here's a link to Today in History.
http://g.msn.com/0MNAU39/1?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7880685/&&PS=84996&SU=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4429957/&HL=Today%20in%20history%3A%20May%2027&CM=Peculiar%20PostingsCColumnBelowAutoBox1&CE=Highlight1

People, this is NOT a good thing...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7900977/

Good for her

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7901344/

Much as I love dogs, some people SHOULD NOT have them

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7898635/

And did you hear about the idiot that locked her five year old son in the basement while she went to the mall, and left her dogs out? She told him, "don't come out, or the dogs might hurt you." He did. And they did. Fortunately, she's getting what she needs in prison.

How can anyone believe in something that's actually the punchline of its own joke?

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4119

Heart attack, anyone?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857151/site/newsweek/

???

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857016/

Cancer, anyone?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7843868/

Yes, he is an idiot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857417/

Aww...who couldn't love dogs?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791682/#050513c

today's news

Interesting news of the day

You have got to be kidding me...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7831608/

Dummy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7838324/

Jerk.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7839217/

Today's interesting news, and some other interesting things that I've run across...

All that money, you would think that they wouldn't be such idiots...

Is anyone else out there disgusted by the absolute idiocy we see in television commercials today? (You can hear it in radio commercials too.) Frankly, it's insulting that someone would think that some of this stuff would actually make me want to buy their product.

Let's start with those very strange Burger King commercials with the creepy looking guy wearing an oversized plastic mask. You wake up and this guy with a smile that's far too large, and a face that's, well, CREEPY, is standing there, looking in your window. I don't care if he's there to give me a tasty sandwich, that's enough to give someone nightmares.

Lawyer's commercials, ugh!

And let's not forget the car insurance commercials, complete with dance numbers that are so awful that it almost seems that they must be poking fun at something. But they're not. Many of these include professional football players, for some reason. And there's Geico--and by the way, according to a reliable source, their statements concerning their 'excellent customer service' are extrememly misleading.

Then there are the worst offenders, car salesmen--Jack Antwerpen and Scott Donahoo among them. And I cannot believe that Mr. Donahoo wants to run for public office. But hey, it worked for a wrestler and big crazy Austrian guy...

And I'm sorry ladies, but way too many of those commercials for feminine products are really annoying. But it's not just the way the commercial is written; half the time, as with many of the others, it's just terrible acting.

One more, just for good measure: that Icebreaker's commercial with Lizzy McGuire. Please go away...

But it's not just the commercials; all of television is getting dumber by the day. How sad is it that advertisers and television news anchors--people who talk for a living--can't use proper grammar? Maybe school children aren't learning what they need to of grammar in school, but T.V. certainly isn't helping. These people are supposed to be professionals; and we college students know that in order for us to be professional, WE NEED TO USE GOOD GRAMMAR.

At least it used to be that the people who made the good money knew what they were doing. What happened?

Unbelievable...

Can anybody say, "Egotistical idiot?" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7800577/

Education in America just keeps getting better and better.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6891139/

And too many idiots for a single introduction:
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/nw.asp

Review: 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'

Not your everyday flick. By any means.

That said, very good. Hitchhiker's Guide was simultaneously silly and thought provoking. Viewers will laugh, but they might also walk out of the theater with some new views on a few subjects--the movie does have an overall point.

Excellent performances from Zooey Deschanel and Sam Rockwell--but has anyone else noticed that Mr. Rockwell always seems to play a bit of a weirdo/creep? Ms. Deschanel, however (previously seen in Elf with Will Ferrel), gives an excellent performance, with a character a bit more likeable than in her last movie; and, by the way, she's gorgeous--very nice eyes, which someone made the wise decision of accenting. Experienced moviegoers might also recognize John Malkovich and the voice of Alan Rickman, who, while an excellent dramatic actor, has also shown considerable skill with comedy. Some out there might recognize the voice of the depressed robot, but have trouble pinpointing it; his most famous role was the villain in Die Hard, but more recently, he did some more outer space comedy in the hilarious Galaxy Quest with Tim Allen.

But wait, there's more. That's right, absolutley dazzling special effects.

Overall? Very entertaining. Definitely a worthy way of passing two hours.

A small world after all--and smaller by the day

I‚Äôm very, very sorry for the clich√© allusion to a certain sickeningly sweet children‚Äôs ride in a certain famous theme park, but it‚Äôs the truth. That‚Äôs right folks, with technology improving pretty much constantly, it‚Äôs getting easier and easier to communicate with, send items to, and even go visit people on the other side of the globe.

A completely global economy is on its way. Soon enough, any of us will be able to do business with someone on another continent just as easily as we can with the guy down the street. What‚Äôs it all mean?

Well, there are three main effects that I can think of. Life will become easier for everyday people. Entrepreneurship will be easier than it has ever been--ever--and economies everywhere will skyrocket. No, not just for rich business CEO‚Äôs, but for everyone. This means not only a better standard of living, but one that improves exponentially, all the time. And finally, governments the world over will be forced to undergo massive changes.

It‚Äôs obvious why life in general will improve. People will be able to live wherever they want, communicate easily with people in distant locales, and even visit those people, and maybe a few nice vacation spots too, with great ease. We‚Äôll enjoy everyday life more. Easy access to exotic goods--even perishable goods like fresh fruit and gorgeous flowers. Sounds nice, doesn‚Äôt it?

Okay, so what about entrepreneurs? That seems obvious too, I suppose. Better access to foreign raw materials. Greater ease in shipping finished goods over great distances. Basically, the business counterpart to the improvements in everyday life. But there‚Äôs more. Labor will be more fluid. Wages and the value of workers across the globe will be equalized, because even the smallest company will be able to outsource jobs to workers who are more worth their wage, meanwhile, workers, too, will be able to move to the better jobs. And workers everywhere will find it easier and easier to get a good education, often without even leaving their countries.

Now some people complain about outsourcing. Some say that it‚Äôs just a way of taking advantage of an economy that‚Äôs not as well off as our own. That it‚Äôs a way to take advantage of the less priviledged. Well, yeah, that‚Äôs true, but I prefer not to say it that way. Frankly, it‚Äôs just smart business. Economically, it‚Äôs the way to go. What do these foreign workers think about it? Well, usually, if you ask them, they‚Äôre glad just to have the job. And some of them aren‚Äôt paid so terribly anyway. Some will cite their low pay, converting it into U.S. dollars. But really, that doesn‚Äôt work. In a lot of these countries, a dollar will buy a lot more than it does here. The costs of the products isn‚Äôt the same. This is because we aren‚Äôt globalized yet. Transportation is still somewhat costly, and there are some other factors.

So what about the idea that outsourcing takes jobs away from Americans? That‚Äôs only half true. It takes away the jobs that we don‚Äôt want. It takes away the jobs that we want to be paid more to do. Here‚Äôs the real catch, though: it frees us up to do better jobs, ones that are more enjoyable and require more skill--so, the ones that get higher pay anyway. And when the economy really is global, it won‚Äôt even be outsourcing anymore. When workers everywhere are equalized, employers will just find the less skilled workers wherever they may be, here or abroad. They will be able to employ them over phone lines, like telemarketers and phone support employees in India and other Third World countries, or actually transport the workers to the job at a lower cost.

And then there are the governments. What will this do to them? Well, because workers across the globe will be more equal, and outsourcing will be so much easier, for many jobs, it will be more efficient than dealing with minimum wage laws here. So as long as we keep these and other labor laws that give employers difficulty, the U.S. will consistently lose jobs to cheaper, more efficient foreign labor. For the benefit of our own economy, to bring down unemployment, the U.S. will be forced to abandon minimum wage. Don‚Äôt panic. It‚Äôs actually a good thing. Even with a limited economy, partially closed as ours is today, minimum wage still causes unemployment. Why, you ask? Before minimum wage, there is a certain number of employees that firms can afford at the lower wages. When minimum wage is enacted, or raised, then the number of employees that the firm can employ goes down, and some of them get fired. Meanwhile, as wages are higher, workers who didn‚Äôt have jobs before and weren‚Äôt looking for them, are enticed to begin seeking them. They are now categorized as unemployed. They may take jobs that could have been taken by some of the employees who were fired. Or maybe some who already have jobs will decide to take second jobs, further decreasing the space for those who were fired. And removing minimum wage would undo it. If wages go down, firms will hire more workers to increase the quality of their good and/or service, and therein sell more.

Something else happens when the price of labor goes up: the price of the product goes up. That‚Äôs right, firms generally don‚Äôt want to completely compromise the quality of their product or service, so they don‚Äôt just cut all of the expenses out of labor. They keep more labor than they can afford, but then raise prices to the consumer. And again, removing the law would reverse the effect. Bringing wages down decreases the cost of production, so the firms then reduce their prices so that they can effectively compete with other firms in the market, and catch more of the profit. And as prices go down, so does the cost of living--and suddenly, lower wages are good enough to make a living.

Let's not forget that this will mean that the government will be spending less money for the upkeep of a number of beaurocracies that help to maintain all of this economic regulation. Smaller national deficit, smaller easier to pay off national debt...Hmm...Besides, not only will things like Welfare disappear, as another one of those regulatory tools, but it won't be needed anymore.

One should also realize, most minimum wage workers aren‚Äôt struggling to survive, desperately trying to support families at $5.15 an hour. Most minimum wage workers, like myself, are students, looking for some extra pocket cash. Their parents generally provide everything that they really need.

And this is just one example of a labor law that the government will be forced to remove. They all work pretty much the same way. Labor laws make American workers less efficient. They become more costly to employ, even if the quality of the labor is still the same. So if the labor laws remain, unemployment will go up, as will prices and cost of living.

How about other countries? Something to compare with. Happy to oblige. France, for example. France is heavy on the labor laws and other economic restrictions. Does the economy fair better for it? Heck no. France's unemployment is 18%, more than three times our own. French entrepreneurs with wonderful products find the need to move here to sell them. India is the same, but much more extreme--and the economy there is just wonderful, isn't it? Okay, so how about a success? Hong Kong. For years, Hong Kong was a British colony. The Brits kept a pretty loose grip on the economy there. It was extremely easy to start a business there. And the economy? Flourishing! The highest concentration of Rolls Royces in the world. Booming real estate. Does Hong Kong have natural resources? Nope. Well, maybe India's just too crowded. No, not that either--Hong Kong is crowded too.

As a matter of fact, this principle, regarding the effects of government regulation, doesn‚Äôt just apply to labor; it applies to any regulation of the economy in general. Price caps. Finance regulation. Anti-trust laws. All of it. If it stays, firms will export their business to less regulated countries and just avoid all the garbage. And again, this isn‚Äôt as bad as it sounds. In the absence of government regulatory agencies, private and non-profit organizations tend to take up the slack--and do a better job. People who have some interest in a certain industry investigate important matters involved in that industry, and voice their opinions to the public. Sometimes this would be the businesses themselves. They may cooperate to evaluate products in their industry and provide information to the public, which will then have the necessary information to buy the best products at the best prices from the best companies. Sometimes the information is provided by other businesses--namely the media. Members of the media investigate products and services and tell the public of their findings. And don't think that job benefits will go down the drain either. As a matter of fact, greater competition throughout the economy will make them even better. The ones that need to be, anyway. Some benefits that people sometimes get from their jobs may be more efficiently acquired independently.

And what about the anti-trust laws? We want to avoid monopolies, don‚Äôt we? Well, the truth is, a monopoly is very hard to maintain. It‚Äôs almost impossible to completely smother every other business in an industry, particularly because most products have alternatives that aren‚Äôt quite the same, but can be used for the same purpose. If an automotive manufacturer gains monopoly and begins charging ridiculous prices for its cars, consumers will walk, ride bikes, car pool, or, GASP, use public transportation. And I highly doubt that G.M. or any of those others could beat out all that. No, the only real monopolies are the ones that are sanctioned by law. Sometimes the government says that only such-and-such a company can provide a certain service or product. That‚Äôs a real monopoly.

And we must remember that the global economy will make it easier for small businesses to compete. They won‚Äôt need as much man power, or massive bank accounts to buy raw materials, employ laborers, manufacture goods, or ship the goods out. Retailers will be able to change prices instantaneously to match shocks to the economy. And it‚Äôs all thanks to technology. Time and distance will be cut down by the internet and other long-distance technology. Cell phones are just the beginning. Automation will make manufacturing quicker and easier, not to mention more reliable. So even the tiniest businesses will be able to buy the necessary materials for their products more easily, manufacture their products more easily, and ship them out more easily--and therein compete with even the biggest business tycoons. We've all seen the commercials for banks and I.T. firms that are now providing sevices particularly designed for small businesses. It‚Äôll no longer be about who has the biggest pool of funds. It‚Äôll all be on who has the best ideas. Monopoly, if it‚Äôs not already, will be virtually impossible.

But back to government. All this will affect more than just the economy. That‚Äôs just the starting point. With the economy becoming more fluid, people will be able to move around and communicate so easily, that the government will be forced to change just about everything. Immigration law, tax law (particularly tariffs), etc. etc. etc. Not to mention international relations. International borders will be far less meaningful, maybe even dissolve entirely. Taxes will be harder to define and impose, particularly because of jurisdiction issues. As a matter of fact, jurisdiction between different countries will become more difficult to define in all areas, including crime.

So what will this do? Well, for one, it will solve a lot of international problems. The nation-state as it is today, with its iron-clad borders, has caused problems since its birth. It has caused genocide in Europe and Africa. It‚Äôs a large part of the problems in the Middle East. It was an issue with China and Taiwan. And then there are the long standing issues between the U.S. and Native Americans. The nation-state has caused wars of greed and conquest. The dissolution of the nation-state will make countries more difficult to find, more difficult to define. Terrorism focused on certain countries (hmm, just what might I be talking about?) will lose all its momentum.

And then there‚Äôs the effect on everyday life. Thoreau said, "That government is best which governs the least." There‚Äôs a reason for that. If you go all the way back to Locke, and read his "Treatises on Civil Government," he says that the government‚Äôs sole purpose is to enforce social contract, therein protecting our bodies, our freedom, and our property--"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it. The government isn‚Äôt really there to make life fair, give everyone an equal share. When the government tries to do that, it‚Äôs bound to make mistakes, and that means it‚Äôs time to scrap it and start over--which the framers of our constitution realized, in their providing so many protections against government power and means of changing the government. This is not to mention the personal liberties provided by the bill of rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, which is in case we should some day need to get rid of the government, which would likely require force. (Please don‚Äôt mistake me for a revolutionary, I certainly don‚Äôt think that we need to make a move like that with things as they are now. It‚Äôs just an ‚Äòin-case.‚Äô)

So anyway, with things as they are now, our government is trying to protect us from a lot of things that we might not really need protection from. While it would be nice to get rid of a lot of this extra junk, and get our freedoms back, some people just cling to it too much. Some people think that it's the only way to go. We‚Äôre probably not gonna be able to minimize the government just yet, because certain groups of people are just resisting it too much. But globalization will force it. Minimization of the government will be necessary to maintain a high living standard.

So guess what? That‚Äôs where we‚Äôre headed. Technology increasing, the world shrinking, it‚Äôs gonna be almost automatic. And what‚Äôs it mean? Better economy. Higher standard of living. Less government and more rights. In short, better life.

A subject that has recently become near and dear to my heart...

What many people don‚Äôt realize about Social Security is that the money that a worker pays toward the program is not held in an account for that worker; rather, that money is put toward the Social Security checks received by current retirees. Therein lies the problem. When the program began in 1935, there were sixteen workers to every retiree. This kind of ratio requires only a small portion of each worker‚Äôs paycheck in order to support the retirees of the country. But it didn‚Äôt last. A steady rise in standard of living coupled with a vast number of medical advances have increased the life expectancy a great deal in the past sixty years, and the ratio has now been reduced to about two and a half workers to support every retiree. This means that in order for the average retiree to maintain the same lifestyle after retirement, the average worker would have to give up %40 of his or her paycheck. Ouch.

And the trend of rising life expectancy is continuing. New medical advances occur almost daily, and life expectancy is inconstant, always on the rise. Worse yet, the Baby-Boomer generation is fast approaching retirement age, and will massively increase the retired population (while they are currently contributing to Social Security funds as workers). All too soon, the worker-to-retiree ratio will likely be reduced to one-to-one, either forcing seniors to live on deplorably small Social Security checks, or forcing workers to regularly give up as much as half of their paychecks. That is, if Social Security reform doesn‚Äôt go through.

We are lucky enough to live in a country where many people work consistently at a job for only about half of their lives, and can then spend decades enjoying retirement. But this standard is in great danger. In years to come, the government will be faced with a choice: either scuttle the Social Security program, or supply it with funds from other sources, further enlarging the national debt. It‚Äôs not hard to see that the second alternative can‚Äôt solve the problem, just hold it off a little longer. But we can‚Äôt let the national debt grow indefinitely, and as it is, the amount of money taken from worker‚Äôs paychecks to support the program has already been raised six times. So, inevitably, Social Security will fail. It may not happen by the time my parents retire, but unless these bull-headed politicians get it through their thick skulls that Social Security reform is absolutely necessary, my generation, a large part of which is now in college, will have a real crisis on its hands one day‚Äìone which our younger brothers and sisters, and yes, our children too, will also be forced to endure.

More than six years ago, I can recall highschool teachers talking about the up-coming problems with Social Security, not as a theory, but as a fact. And these were teachers whose ideology was no secret. They were liberal, and they didn‚Äôt dispute it. But now, because our Republican president has put Social Security reform high on his agenda, the Democrats claim it to be part of some insidious plan. It‚Äôs petty and selfish and unconscionable. It‚Äôs party politics at its worst. Frankly, it‚Äôs just wrong. These people obviously don‚Äôt have the nation‚Äôs best interest at heart. In their minds, supporting a president that is so widely disliked in the liberal community, even when he‚Äôs right, would be blasphemous.

The claim is that privatizing Social Security is risky business. Sure. It probably is a bit risky. But consider the alternative! Social Security will fail. We need to do something about it. Besides, when someone like the very sage Allen Greenspan, who has been Chairman of the Fed since 1987, supports the program, who are we to disagree? OK, so the what about hard evidence; is there any? There sure is. In 1981, Chile privatized its Social Security program, and the move was a massive success. People lose a smaller portion of their paychecks to their retirement funds, and end up having a large, reliable source of income for their golden years. Why is this? Because private firms are far more efficient than the government. People can even go to ATM-like terminals to check on their accounts if they wish. Furthermore, workers even collect interest on the money! Wow! Then there are the sixteen other countries worldwide that have done the same thing, as well as three counties in Texas--and U.S. federal employees have this option too. Are there other effects? Of course. Like a better economy, resulting from the massive new sums of invested money. Lower unemployment, better economic growth, a faster rise in standard of living. Scary, right?

The simple truth is, public social security is going to fail. Without a doubt. What can we do about it? Tinkering won't save it. So we have to replace it. How? Very few options have been put forth. There's a reason for that. Very few options exist. The U.S. will eventually have to privatize it. So now the question is when. It's true, there's a hurdle to get over. The transition is going to cause a larger deficit, but it's gotta be done. And it seems pretty likely that the longer we wait, the more it's gonna cost. Forgive the further politicization, but President Bush is pretty brave--and wise. He knows that there are gonna be problems. He knows what must be done. He probably also knows that the process is gonna make him pretty unpopular. But he's doin' it anyway.

There are probably many out there who don‚Äôt believe me. That‚Äôs fine. But I only wish that people wouldn‚Äôt just prostrate themselves before the wild claims of the Democrats either. I would encourage voters to investigate the matter for themselves. See what they can dig up. Anyone who doesn‚Äôt actually know and understand the issue can not say that it‚Äôs for a lack of information. It‚Äôs all out there. But rather than just listen to wild postulations, try finding the logic. Try finding the evidence. For my sake. For the sake of the kids I hope to one day have. No, scratch that. Do it for you.

Interesting links related to the late Pope John Paul II

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7359150/?GT1=6428

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7375736/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7427983/

A Mother's Day failsafe (for future reference)

If you ever need an idea of where to get a gift for the mom who has everything, check out a Bath and Body Works. Many wonderful scents there, and in my experience, moms, and women in general, respond well the the kinds of gifts that you can get there.

But it's a tie for first. There's also Yankee Candles. A scent for everyone, and it doesn't matter if your mom already has some scented candles. There's absolutely no way that she has every one of the wonderful scents that can be found at this store.

By the way, it's not just moms that like Bath and Body Works. Like I said, women in general seem to like what they have to offer. Just in case you were wondering.

But as for the dad who has everything...well, you're on your own there.

Hello everyone!

New blog, my first post! Hope I get lots of readers, hope everyone finds me informative. Never knew it was so easy to create a blog. Got here through Google, a wonderful creation. Later!

What's goin' on...

5/26/2005

The Jackson Jury is on its knees thanking God

Jerk

Summer Break and Today in History

5/19/2005

People, this is NOT a good thing...

Good for her

Much as I love dogs, some people SHOULD NOT have them

disgusting

LOL

MSN: Today in History

The side of Economics that few of us think about (I have)

More interesting economic phenomena

More crazy high-tech gadgets

5/17/2005

It seems Canada isn't the paradise some would have us think...

Very, very sad

5/16/2005

Check it out!

5/15/2005

How can anyone believe in something that's actually the punchline of its own joke?

Heart attack, anyone?

???

Cancer, anyone?

Yes, he is an idiot.

Aww...who couldn't love dogs?

5/14/2005

today's news

5/13/2005

Interesting news of the day

5/12/2005

Today's interesting news, and some other interesting things that I've run across...

5/10/2005

All that money, you would think that they wouldn't be such idiots...

Unbelievable...

5/09/2005

Review: 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'

A small world after all--and smaller by the day

5/08/2005

A subject that has recently become near and dear to my heart...

Interesting links related to the late Pope John Paul II

A Mother's Day failsafe (for future reference)

5/06/2005

Hello everyone!

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives