Issue 367 Poor and Stocks July 20, 2015

Stocks are a gamble on your money.  It is you giving a company money in the same fashion of a loan in the hopes of profiting off the interest.  However, the poor in our country has limited access to a degree in my opinion, and I feel that if they did have access, they could benefit greatly.  Let us discuss.

Access:  The poor generally do not have access due to a lack of disposable income to risk on investing.  As such, they do not even bother learning how to invest, which makes it harder for them to try and do so later on.  Also, even if they do invest, they are taxed on it for taking it out for it is considered income.  This becomes another inhibitor because, why would you invest money when you cannot use/maximize the money you just earned.   Additionally, stocks are intertwined with business as more investment means business expands and generally means more people getting jobs.  So how can we increase access?

Increasing access:  For one, we can make this money non-taxable when taking it out.  This would benefit everyone as this means people can freely invest and could potentially become millionaires overnight with the right investments.  Likewise, this would allow people and companies to invest more readily which means business expands and unemployment decreases.    We can also make it non-taxable going in just like a 401k which also preserves money for the poor and especially for those transitioning out of poverty.

To ensure that people do not make poor investment choices, all financial data will be readily available upon request and in real time as opposed to the current law which says simply that they have to release data in a timely fashion.  This has the effect of eliminating insider trading laws as everyone would know what is going on with a business's finances and market value at any given time.  In combination with the real time knowledge, a real time report on stock stability and investment can be devised along with predictions so that the people investing can buy, sell and trade freely without limit so as to avoid any losses.  So one company or even treasury bonds of a particular country or any form of stable investment can be deemed safe for an upcoming collapse, which would provide flexibility and aid in avoiding losses for the investors.  This of course means all companies and all countries that can be invested in must be able to be freely traded globally in a manner similar to free trade among nations.   To also aid in investing and to avoid middle man costs, companies could and maybe should allow for open source direct investments.  This scheme would literally be a link on their website, or a kiosk in their store that allows you to buy stock in that company directly.  So no more brokers to get in the way of your investing.

Conclusion:  So access can be increased, though obviously disposable income is still an issue.  However, everyone can benefit from these changes with respect to monetary gain, and jobs open up simply because investing gives companies disposable capital to expand and thus creating a need for jobs to be filled.  A freer system equals more chances to get out of poverty.  Investing is simply one tool to do that.

Issue 636 Evil Is Anti-responsibility? July 17, 2015

People decide their own outcomes.  As such every action they take is their responsibility.  So is it evil when you are anti-responsibility?  

Responsibility:  Do you remember the Disney Cartoon with the dog Pluto.  In it Pluto is put in a quandary on whether or not to do something and his devil self and angel self appeared on his shoulders.  However, both urged him to do the wrong thing.  But Pluto decides whether or not to act.  This is the same with all of us.  We decide whether or not to act.  And when we act we become responsible for our action that we take.  At no time are we manipulated like a puppet.  Sure, our options can become limited in situations that are extreme, but it is still our responsibility.  But is us not taking responsibility evil?  The answer is that unto itself, this is not evil.  If no responsibility is taken, then is it evil in practice?  Think about it.  You're in a situation where people will not become a victim, nor you yourself, and a person takes an action, or you take one.  No one is harmed and thus despite the action, whatever it is, the lack of responsibility being taken is not evil.  You are never without some form of responsibility to begin with, but not taking it is not evil or necessarily irresponsible.  But when does taking responsibility, or avoiding it become evil?

In this case taking responsibility or not becomes evil when morality is in question.  Volunteering to do harm to someone is taking responsibility for doing another harm.  Not acting to preserve another's life is avoiding responsibility in the face of someone getting hurt.  Get it?  Evil is doing an action or inaction regardless of the responsibility involved when a person gets harmed in some serious way.  Introducing a kid to drugs and then abandoning them to their now addiction is anti-responsibility, and thus is evil.  Being a soldier in Nazi Germany and killing the Jews and others without question despite knowing it is morally wrong is taking responsibility and thus because of the moral (let alone ethical consequences) is evil.  Evil is anti-morality, not anti-responsibility.

Conclusion:  We generally take responsibility for our actions when it benefits us, and avoid it when it is inconvenient.  You could even say this is a survival mechanism.  But learning when and where we can make decisions is crucial to actually making this choice.  Additionally, understanding the moral consequences beyond what affects us is also a necessity to making sure we do not even accidentally commit an evil deed by simple inaction or avoiding responsibility.  As such, people have to be able to think beyond themselves and place themselves into others shoes.  But our society has a very short attention span.  We lack focus because we are no longer deep thinkers.  As such, I wrote this little issue based on another conversation Between Glenn Beck and Penn Gilet on the Blaze (they make interesting points) because we need to become deep thinkers again.  I feel that our attention spans have grown so short and that our incessant need for immediate gratification so large that we forget there are people even around us.  So just remember morality at the least, that if it will cause harm to another person then it may be evil.

Issue 635 Spa's and Medicine July 16, 2015

I talked a few weeks ago about the abortion industry trying to combine a spa and a clinic in one.  While I am completely against that idea, they may be on to something with respect to treatment and recovery for other conditions.  Let us discuss.

Relax and heal:  Basically, pamper a patient before a procedure and then after to promote healing. A person going for an operation is nervous and thus tense, which means they lose their natural harmony with the body and their everyday life.  Also, a doctor's office invokes stress with some people thus giving false readings on things like blood pressure, so creating a spa like atmosphere is essential to keeping the patient's mind off treatment and more on healing.   Relaxed patients are less tense and to my knowledge, that decrease in stress and tension aids in the bodies healing process.  If a treatment is ongoing like cancer treatments, then a day at the spa to remove the bodies stress, and even to remove toxins through the skin reduces the amount of work the body has to do to recover from treatments.  Heck, even a basic massage will do, with some sort of meditation or yoga like session in a spa like format.  

And you know what?  Even the doctor can get in on the act with the nurses.  They are stressed during the procedure as they try to do everything in their power to help you.  So periodic spa treatments for them will aid in reducing their health, reducing their overall stress, and maybe make them more personable with their patients.  As such, this mental and physical health break can be positive for all involved.

Additionally, if these spa like rooms are set up, then patients with similar ailments and procedures and the doctors and nurses who treat them will relax together.  It will help patients to relax to know that they are not alone in their discomfort and fears.  And with the doctor and nurses there, the patients can get to know them rather than having people they barely know cut into them, let alone treat them.  So this is a possible side benefit if it can be set up to allow for this.

Conclusion:  Mental and physical relaxation are needed to advance healing.  Patients and those that treat them can both benefit as a positively thinking relaxed person has their immune system function normally, while to my knowledge, a stressed person will have a weakened immune system.  So is this a good idea?  Can this truly help patients and thus make it worth the cost?  Maybe hospitals can use it to garner extra revenue as part of pre-emptive treatment and thus help patients boost their immune systems so they can avoid needing to go to the doctor.  Who knows, but if I owned a hospital, I would add a spa in it along with yoga, tai chi and similar relaxation and meditative components so as to insure the health and happiness of patients.

Issue 634 Recycle Fibers July 15, 2015

So all that lint from the dryer is wasted in my opinion.  Is there something we can do with it?

Can it be recycled?:  Lint from natural and unnatural fibers can possibly be used to make new fibers to make clothing or other woven together materials like carpets.  As such it would be cheaper to make clothes, rugs and the like simply because of the fact that it is a recycled material and not have to be harvested from a plant, animal or made in a factory.  Additionally, human hair and animal fur from barber shops or from our pets can also potentially be used.  Basically, it would be sanitized, then spun together with possibly some form of glue to keep the small component fibers together, dyed to give it the appropriate coloring and finally made into a product. I think people would be sort of squeamish about the clothing, but a rug would potentially work or blinds, or maybe the fibers compressed into a solid block to make sandals or parts of furniture to replace hard woods. What could we do potentially with this wasted material?

Conclusion:  I believe in recycling as much as possible. There is no reason to throw away plastic in regular trash when it can be recycled, so why throw out fibers in the form of lint or hair clippings when it can be remade or reused in another way.  If we are going to live more cheaply, and live more in harmony with our planet, then we go to start looking at things in a different way.

Issue 633 Food Parks July 14, 2015

So this is a concept where parks and food meet.  Sounds strange, but allow me to explain.

The idea:  Basically, rather than a traditional park that simply looks nice and is nice to relax in, why not add in edible plants.  As such there would be fruit trees like apple, berry bushes, and naturally growing edible plants.  At places where you can relax and sit down in the park there could be trellises or other barriers that act as a base for vine based fruits like grapes.  Basically, nearly every plant in the park is edible.

Additionally, there will be a stream and/or a lake in the park for people to fish for well "fish".  Also, slingshots can be rented out to hunt small game, like squirrels and birds.  But you are probably wondering about the purpose of this.  Read on to find out.

Purpose:  I was inspired by the idea of urban foraging where people could make a meal out of edible plants that grow naturally in urban environments like in the city such as dandelions.  As such, I wanted to take that idea and make it more purposeful with a real park dedicated toward people being able to harvest food themselves without going to the supermarket.  I thought that it could aid the poor, those on a budget and those who value naturally grown food to gather food to fend for themselves.  So this concept would need free entry, and possibly paid classes to coach people on cooking with these natural ingredients (which means fire pits for cooking or grills).  Of course this means, with respect to the animals, they would teach people how to cook with bugs, the small game killed by the slingshots, and the fish caught while fishing.  Therefore food prep would be taught as well, which is a useful skill while cooking foods that you may normally never prepare yourself.  Obviously teaching how to cook with every part of the plant or animal would be necessary as waste is the last thing needed here and the leftovers can be composted to be used later as natural fertilizer. It is important to note that food sustainability will be taught as well, which means people will only be allowed to take/eat what they need only, which teaches people responsibility to the environment and to their fellow man.  Basically a cheap meal prepared by natural ingredients in a pseudo natural environment.

Conclusion:  Does this idea have merit?  Would you risk having an apple fall on your head in a park if it meant you could eat the apple?  I personally think it would be fun, but that is because it is my idea.  Hope I inspired you a little and see you next time.

Issue 632 It's Your Property July 13, 2015

We now know from last Friday's issue that property is a right and that government owning it is a bad thing.  But what does it mean to have property rights?  

What you can do with your Property:

1) Sell it:  You can sell your property to anyone you want. Additionally you can rent it out as well.  As such, you can make a profit on your own property.

2) Buy it: Since you can sell it, you can also acquire more property.  There is no limit to the amount of property that you can own.  And this is not just houses, but items, businesses and your own inventions as well.

3) Improve it/Change it: If you have a house, and add a new addition, then you have changed the value of the land and made it (hopefully) more livable.  Or you can cut away at it and build something new on your property.  So you can alter your property as you see fit.

4) Mortgage it:  You can put up your property as collateral for money.  As such, your house, car, or anything you own with value can be used as collateral to acquire a loan.  

Conclusion:  These are the basics of what you can do with your property.  If you want to build a house out of beer cans, then you can.  Your property is yours and thus you can and should be able to treat it in any way you see fit.  If you want it as a dumping ground for trash, then that is your prerogative.  Some localities however block the ability to do anything you want and even tax you if the value of the land improves, which in turn violates your rights.  As such, there is pushback on who can do what with their property, but ultimately, so long as we keep government in check and respect each other’s own rights and privileges, then our property is ours to do with as we please.

Issue 631 Property rights under big government July 10, 2015

In the United States people are allowed to own their own property (for now at least).  But what would it look like if the government owned the land?  Read on to find out.

Big government control:  To understand what would happen we only need to look to the past.  In Europe under Kings and Queens, or even in communist societies, the government owned all the land and its resources.  Kings and Queens would give the land away to those that curried their favor, but if they displeased the king and queen, the land could be taken back at any time.  Under communist rule, land was equally distributed to an extent with those who played the system being able to get more land than the common person.

Today it would be the same thing.  Government would own the land and then distribute it in a way they saw fit.  However, if you fell out of favor with the government or you were just in the way, they could and would take the land back to accomplish whatever their goals are.  Understand that government is not benevolent, and that everything comes with a cost.  In this case, you cannot speak out against the government, or act against their interests or else they will make you homeless. Basically they can suppress your rights by threatening to take all your property away.

Conclusion:  Property is a right that is given to us under the Constitution under the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment.  The U.S. Constitution even makes it so that Congress can punish certain crimes like piracy which is typically a crime against property.  So the U.S. is unique.  But, people with respect to ideas and good intentions gone bad are not.  Slowly but surely we are reinterpreting our constitution which results in things like Kilo Vs. New London where people's property was taken and given to someone else because government thought the new property owner would improve the land (which they did not do).   As such, be cautious and remember the abuses that can result if the government should gain full control over property.