America’s Economic Myths

Myth # 1: “Dependence on Foreign Oil”

This myth basically suggests that the problem with oil prices is due to America’s “dependence” on foreign oil. One of the worst economic myths, it plays on economic nationalism and on xenophobic feelings that are sometimes pervasive in the United States.

The high price of oil has nothing to do with its origin; the price of oil is determined in international markets. Even if the United States were to produce 100% of the oil it consumes, the price would be the same if the worldwide supply and demand of oil were to remain the same. Oil is a commodity, so the price of a barrel produced in the United States is basically the same as the price of a barrel of oil produced in any other country, but the costs of labor, land, and regulatory compliance are usually higher in the United States than in third-world countries. Lowering these costs would help increase supply. Increasing supply, whether in the United States or elsewhere, will push prices lower.

Importing a product does not mean you “depend” on it. This is like saying that when we “import” food from our local supermarket we “depend” on that supermarket. The opposite is usually true; exporters depend on us, since we are the customers. Also, importing a product usually means buying at lower prices, whereas producing in the United States often means consuming at higher prices. This point is proven when we see the cheap imports we can purchase from China and the higher prices of many of these same products manufactured in the United States. The amazing thing is that the protectionists claim, on the one hand, that America should be “protected” from cheap imports, but when it comes to oil, they say we should be “protected” from “expensive imported” oil.

Most, if not all, of the higher price of oil can be explained by the expansion of the money supply or the debasement of the dollar. The foreign producers are not at fault; our national central bank is the culprit.

Fuck the RIAA…again…and always

If Downloading A Song Is Just Like Stealing A CD, Why Won’t The RIAA Allow Reselling MP3s?

from the either-it-is-or-it-isn’t dept

When you hear RIAA defenders insist that an unauthorized download is “just like stealing a CD” or something along those lines, it’s worth noting even they don’t really mean it. After all, if a digital file really was no different than a physical goods purchase, then you’d be able to do other things with it — such as resell it. And yet, as you read through Eliot Van Buskirk’s article about new online services trying to create marketplaces for people to sell their “used” MP3s, you’ll see the scenario is quite different. After all, it’s perfectly legal to sell your used CDs, but now when it comes to selling used MP3s you need a record label’s permission? Why? Well, because even the record labels seem to inherently know that a CD is quite different from a download. So when the RIAA claims they’re the same, what they really mean is “only the stuff we like is the same.”

There was Godwin’s Law and there were Six Degrees of Seperation…now there’s Wolfe’s Law: It All Leads Back to Terrorism

There. I said it.

Just like with Godwin’s Law, how every conversation eventually brings up Nazis, and with Stanley Milgram’s “small world experiment”, how everyone is generally connected to anyone else by a few small degrees of separation…

Now, now I coin the phrase, after yours truly, Wolfe’s Law: Everything leads to Terrorism in one way or another.

The below example is only one of many. See how many you can come up with!

Spotting Links to Terrorism, Inc.

“As companies expand their global reach, they risk smudging their reputations by linking up with less-than-savory regimes. Even firms with good reputations reach into dark corners.

Take Royal Dutch/Shell. Although highly regarded for its environmental and human rights stances, the oil giant is drilling in Iran. Or consider Swedish carmaker Volvo. Despite its nice-guy image, it has sold trucks to Iraq.

Until Sept. 11, no group formally screened publicly traded companies for their links to terrorism or the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But as the United States has focused on terrorism, so some groups have begun to look at companies linked to it, even peripherally.

Earlier this month, a socially responsible investors group announced it had compiled a list of nearly 300 such firms. The group, the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC), along with the Conflict Securities Advisory Group (CSAG), prefers to sell its list to subscribers (at $12,500 a year) rather than make it public. Nevertheless, the statistics it has released make interesting reading.

For example, of the 260 or so firms linked to countries supporting terrorism and developing weapons of mass destruction, a third are European. More than a quarter come from Asia. Only 10 percent are American.”

Everyone Hop On The Bailout Train!

Another major American industry is asking for assistance as the global financial crisis continues: Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis said Wednesday they will request that Congress allocate $5 billion for a bailout of the adult entertainment industry.

…

But the industry leaders said the issue is a nation in need. “People are too depressed to be sexually active,” Flynt said in the statement. “This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex.”

“Millons of homecrafters face bankruptcy after Jan 20 from new law”

The January 20 2009 deadline for millions of American homecrafters to object to a new law requiring expensive testing of their products, is approaching fast. Child-products without certificates proving they have no lead content, will have to be scrapped.

The new Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act – passed hastily to bar poisonous foreign products – also will require millions of American homecrafters to have each of their products tested at huge cost, ranging from $500 to $4000 per product – including their old stock which was manufactured before this law had even been thought up.

No more selling old things on eBay or Craigslist…
And all the products sold on eBay or Craigslist will also require such certificates of compliance or they will be breaking the law. Also affected: millions of charities, which will no longer be able to accept donations without a certificate of compliance. And this certificate can only be obtained through expensive testing by an SCPC-accredited laboratory.” Without such certificates, billions of dollars worth of uncertified children’s products will have to be destroyed because they can’t be legally sold without an CPSI-certificate of compliance, and this will cause major environmental problems,” said Massachusetts campaigner Kiki Fluhr.

“Larger corporations that can afford testing will incur thousands, maybe millions of dollars in fees, and this expense will be handed down to the consumer, probably making the prices for children’s products go through the roof.” Fluhr: “This law will put thousands of manufacturers of children’s products out of business -hurting our economy and causing even more loan defaults. Though this legislation was well-intentioned, it cannot be allowed to stand.”

“This law affects every stay at home mom trying to help put food on the table and every grandmother knitting blankets for the local craft fair. It makes the thousands of us who have found a niche in the burgeoning handmade market have to make a tough decision – continue to produce items illegally and possible incur a $100,000 fine, or close up shop and maybe not be able to pay the mortgage this month….”

That really sucks. What will wonderful websites like Etsy do? Why are we trying to kill off small-time artisans..especially with this economy? Is our land really the land of the corporate?

Gosh. I used to buy diy items on Ebay all the time. Special little items that someone else used and can now sell to me rather than throwing it away.This will only encourage people to buy new products rather than invest less money in more durable items. No more hand-me-downs. No more individual craftsartists.

This really makes everything seem so bleak. If it’s not factory-mass-produced, you can’t have it. What a crazy monopoly that we are presenting to large businesses. I’m rather distraught about this. If you click on the above link to the article there is a petition you can sign. As useful as that is.

Golly gee, can you imagine a black market for used products? People trying to sell their hand-made soap and jewelry? We could write dystopias on this.

But again, it’s not just the trouble of having a harder time consuming cheaply…charities are affected. I remember before I left England we randomly found a soup kitchen workshop and we asked them where we could donate our clothes and blankets since I can’t take them with me. She told us to bring them over tomorrow, they’d wash them for us. It was nice just to pack bookbags of clothes, blankets and other trinkets and give them to an organization directly.

The law isn’t evil, it’s trying to protect. Yet within this protection there is an excess. Sure we’re trying to keep people safe, but within the zealotry people get hurt, small businesses suffer, small people who can’t even count as a small business suffer.

“No US president has ever died under the same flag that he was born under.”

Textbook Buy-back

If the Real World Used Textbook Buy-Back Policies

Buyer: I’ll give you $5,000 for it.
Homeowner: Are you crazy? I just paid $100,000 for it in January. Haven’t you heard of value appreciation?
Buyer: All I’m hearing is that your house is used.
Homeowner: Hardly. I spent like 2 days there in March and then 6 hours yesterday. This house is in perfect condition.
Buyer: Oh yeah, what’s this note above the backdoor?
Homeowner: It says, “Low door. Mind your head.”
Buyer: Low door, huh?
Homeowner: Yeah, but that’s not a problem. It’s just a feature of the house. It’s supposed to be like that. That’s just a helpful note in case people didn’t notice the height of the door.
Buyer: It sullies the whole house. The whole house is crap because of that note!
Homeowner: What are you talking about? This isn’t even a pretty house.
Buyer: So you admit it!
Homeowner: Yeah. It’s a stupid looking house on a boring block, but people still want to buy it. Haven’t you heard of supply and demand?
Buyer: Nope. And I’m not going to give you more than $5,000 for this dump. That’s just policy.
Homeowner: What are you talking about? What policy?
Buyer: Just policy.
Homeowner: Well, maybe I won’t sell it to you. Who knows, I might need this house in the future. It’s got pretty cool…faucets. I might want to use those. Ugh, fine. Give me the stupid 5 grand.
Buyer: Great doing business with you.
Ex-Buyer: Attention, all prospective buyers! Who wants to buy this fantastic, mint-condition home for $90,000?
Ex-Homeowner: What?!
Ex-Buyer: Sucker.

Higher Education: Only For Those High Up on the Social Foodchain

The rising cost of college — even before the recession — threatens to put higher education out of reach for most Americans, according to the biennial report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.

“If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won’t have an affordable system of higher education,” said Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education.

“When we come out of the recession,” Mr. Callan added, “we’re really going to be in jeopardy, because the educational gap between our work force and the rest of the world will make it very hard to be competitive. Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers.”

I posted this link in my Facebook, but I figured it should be addressed here as well. So I’m glad I’m getting my degree now, considering that I went to this college based solely on financial aid. I’m barely affording it as is.

The future of Gattaca is sadly, not too far off.

But then again, 17 out of 23 people in my cyberpolitics class are on the way to become millionaires. One girl in my group was determined to make 10 million. I’m sure someone else raised their hand as well. I guess they don’t have much to worry about.

What the people forced into virtual colleges because commuting to college has gotten impossible due to high gas prices? Virtual education is inferior. It’s not the same as a campus classroom, with established professors.

So higher education is on the way to once more being only for the affluent?

I wonder how many more girls will dance their way to afford tuition?

Joe Six-Pack Economy Lesson

U.S. Tax System Explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. ‘Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10! ”Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man.
‘I only saved a dollar, too.. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I! ”That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man.
‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
”Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
‘The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man ( the richest) didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.