Issue 689 Don't Tax Services September 30, 2015

Continuing from last issue on services, I wanted to expand on the subject.  In this case, I want to present my case on why services should not be taxed.  Let us begin.

Don't Tax it:  First and foremost, services can be either free, pay as you go or subscription based.  So money can change hands.  However, unlike with goods (like cars, toys, tools etc.) nothing physical is exchanged.  There is no exchange of property.  In other words, teachers providing an education to students as a service would not be taxed.  Same goes for intellectual property, such as online news, blogs and such.  These are all services where no physical property is exchanged, but is either someone's labor, which can count as a form of free expression, or information which is someone's freedom of speech.  So should a web designer be taxed because they were paid to design a web site despite it being a form of free expression and speech? (It counts because the website provides information and the design of the site itself can be considered art).  Should an online magazine be taxed for charging a nominal fee to access their content which is their freedom of speech and even part of their freedom of the press?  No property in the form of an item is returned from the money given, just intangibles like labor and information.  So why are such things taxed when they clearly blur the lines between the meaning of exchange of property?

Conclusion:  As long as nothing physical is returned in exchange for the money like a computer, or a toy, then it is probably a service.  When we provide our labor to a business we work at, we are also providing a service.  Can you imagine the sheer level of economic progress we can achieve by eliminating taxes on services all around?  People would be able to keep so much more of their income and have more options with respect to jobs in service based industries like computer programming and artists.  Health Care would be almost entirely untaxed, which means cheaper medicine.  Services that are internet based would be the top commodities with respect to global trade and business due to the freedom to be sold to the entire world.  Internet based services provide information, which is the freedoms of expression and may also, depending on the content, be considered a part of the press.  These online services even allow people to peaceably assemble via online chat rooms and even aid in freedom of religion.  Basically the internet based ones alone have at least one out of four of the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution (those freedoms being freedom of speech, worship, press, peaceful assembly and to petition the government).  That’s one freedom and potentially including the other three save government petitioning.  Labor based services also qualify as a form of speech for people choose where they work, how they work and can move (if they have the money) to find work (the ability to move and choose your occupation is free speech).  That work may be providing the news (freedom of the press) or involve a religious based industry or charity (freedom of religion).  Services based on labor can be community organizing which aids in freedom of religion, counts as peaceable assembly and can even be a form of petitioning the government.  Do you get it know a little?  By taxing these services, the government is not only diminishing our income for selling intangible materials, they are actually taxing our freedoms!  So let's stop the madness, and not tax services anymore.

Issue 688 Free Trade on Services September 29, 2015

Free Trade has become a dirty word with respect to manufacturing jobs.  Why? You ask.  Simple, manufacturing due to free trade gets concentrated into countries where it is cheapest to manufacture goods.  As such, factory jobs disappear in other countries increasing unemployment.  So despite the consumer getting a cheaper product, their nationalism and the idea of job losses taints the very idea of free trade.  But there is a component of free trade that reduces the pain job wise.  In this case it is free trade on services.  Allow me to explain.

Free trade on Services:  While manufacturing jobs are destroyed by free trade because every business wants their goods produced in the cheapest way possible so as to save costs while increasing sales.  Services do not destroy such jobs, for they can be provided literally to anyone anywhere.  First and foremost, I must explain what a service is.  An example would be insurance companies.  They provide financial support for people who cannot afford medicine out of pocket, or to repair damages to people's house. Essentially, they provide money for those situations that would otherwise bankrupt you.  Banks are another example, in which they provide a place to store your money safely.  These are services.  It is the providing of a non-tangible product to meet a public need.  Another example is a cell phone company, power companies and even legal services by law firms.  All these are services where you give money to these businesses and they provide to you some form of service.  But this is very broad for this even includes maids and potentially even prostitutes.  Thus, we are going to narrow it down to anything that does not require actual physical contact with another individual, and no need to ship anything.  As such, we are talking about computer programming, online tax help, and online legal help. These activities do not harm our manufacturing jobs for they are not built by hand in the traditional sense.  Also, they may need impute or aid to complete, create, or provide from multiple places around the world.  So, unlike traditional manufacturing jobs which are stuck in a single location or country, services traded online are global and thus flexible.  They need not have brick and mortar facilities as they can be provided from the seller from the comfort of their own home.  It is these services that free trade should embrace.  Can you imagine how much cheaper health insurance would be if we had the entire world's health insurance companies vying for your money.  Contract with any company for computer support.  Video Games can be made by anyone and sold to anyone with a simple download.  Architectural designs can be delivered via the internet, and then printed at the worksite.  No jobs lost here as everyone can provide the services at their cheapest no matter where they are.  However, the fact that we do not have free trade on such businesses results in stagnation of prices and innovation.  We need the competition of these internet traded businesses to enhance and improve quality of services while making them compete to provide them at the lowest cost. Which is exactly why competition needs to be maximized to where everyone can compete with everyone else.

Conclusion:  Basically we want online services to compete in the same way news has become everyone competing against one another.  You have a bunch of bloggers, radio hosts, people who do podcasts, and regular news people competing with each other.  Everyone becomes everyone else's competition.  Hence why free trade enhances and provides a bigger platform to get to that ideal.  A place where you can get help from a doctor in China via online video, or to bank with a company in a tax haven all without leaving your home.  Free trade makes this a reality, because all can compete without fear of losing a job to an overseas company because you cannot produce the same good for less like with manufacturing.  For you are not producing a good, but a service where the price can be adjusted and sold cheaper with a simple click of the mouse so as to keep your customers coming back.  Though you still have to make sure your services quality is good.

Issue 687 Government money and Subsidies September 28, 2015

The government likes to give out a lot of money.  They give it to businesses, organizations, other countries and even charities.  But, the tax payer money does not belong to them.  It belongs to us.  So don't you think it is time they stopped with the handouts?

Case against subsidies:  Subsidies, for those who do not know, are monies given by the government to any form of organization with little to now expectant returns.  For example, Planned Parenthood gets subsidies under the claim that they use that money for women's health.  However, that organization performs abortions which violates people's religious and moral beliefs.  As such, as a voter who does not agree with abortion, the money should not go to Planned Parenthood at all.  Likewise, money goes to oil companies in the form of subsidies, which people who believe in global warming and climate change do not believe in.  They as a voter have the right to say no, as it is the tax payer’s money.  It is their money too.  However, these subsidies are numerous.  The national endowment for the arts is one organization in the government that funnels money to artists and organizations in the form of subsidies to handpicked artists whom you as a voter may think sucks.  Money is given to charities, unions, businesses and organizations to get their favor and money for the following election.  The government and politicians also pick and choose who they deem are worthy to get these funds and some of these funds are placed into laws to get politicians to vote for things they may or may not believe in.  So what does this tell us?  That our money is being used as a tool to grant political favors.

Conclusion:  There really is no shortage of examples for you merely have to google how much money an oil company, import export businesses, union, Planned Parenthood and more have donated to politicians and how many subsidies have been given in return.  They are literally a click away.  Think about all that wasted money that was just tossed to these groups that may or may not benefit anyone but themselves.  Subsidies play into the corruption of government via lobbyists whom we all do not like in general.  As such, we need to ban subsidies via a constitutional amendment.  That Amendment must state that the government cannot give money to any organization, or group of individuals of any kind, under any circumstance with the sole exception of purchasing a good or a service for use by the government exclusively or as part of a treaty with a foreign country.   Basically unless they are buying something for the government to use like a computer program, or fuel for the militaries motor pool, the government can no longer give any money away ever again.  And with that, our problem would be solved.  No more moral violations or ethical violations with the people's money ever again.

Issue 686 Double Blind Debate September 25, 2015

After watching the first republican debate of this year, it got me thinking.  They are primarily winning just on personality, but that does not make a president.  So I propose an alteration to the debate format.  Here is the idea.

Blind debate:  So instead of seeing the candidates on stage, they are cast in shadow with their voices distorted so none of them can be told apart from each other.  Then a number will appear before each of them to differentiate each person with the number lighting up or altering color when they are speaking.  From there it works like a normal debate until the end.  At which time people can vote who won, or the pundits can decide which person was best.  Once the winner is decided, each candidate's number is reviled.  The results may surprise or change people's opinions.  I say this and propose this idea based on historical records and studies done on past Presidential elections.   The most poignant example is the Kennedy Nixon debate.  People who watched on television thought that Kennedy won, but people listening via radio thought Nixon won.  That reason had to do with image.  Nixon was sick on stage and was not wearing makeup, while Kennedy was youthful and vibrant looking.  Basically the more beautiful looking person won.  Further studies reveal that not only that, but in a majority of elections, the most youthful candidates typically won as well.  So by hiding their faces and voices it eliminates the age and beauty factor.  Additionally, it eliminates the race and sex/gender factor as well.  Basically, the debate can now be heard more objectively by the listening audience, and thus prevent as much bias as possible.  This even has the benefit of reducing the amount of on stage attacks on other candidates which should result in the issues being talked about more, rather than about each other.  Basically, I wanted a debate where we would get to make an objective decision without biases and this is what I came up with.

Conclusion: Debates are a ratings magnet for news agencies.  Hence why they are hosted by the major news networks like Fox and CNN.  But, our biases get in the way due to looks, age, race, sex/gender, party affiliation or even just favoritism.  This however does a disservice to the country and to ourselves by us allowing those biases to take hold.  Thus my double blind debate, where if all goes well, not even the candidates will know who is who on stage.

Issue 685 Library College September 24, 2015

So we all know colleges are expensive, even community colleges for some people.  As such, why don't we use the library to provide free education?  Here is the idea.

Library College:  At a library you can educate yourself for free.  The only thing you cannot get is the certification for a degree.  Yes there are certification tests to demonstrate your knowledge, but people still favor the college degrees in business due to colleges being promoted as the place to learn and advance in the business world.   As such, let us change that.  Libraries offer an array of books which can be used as course material to educate a person on a subject, so why not make those books into a curriculum.  Select a subject, then have a student read from a list of books on that particular subject.  If the material has to be separated because you need prerequisite knowledge, then give a list of books per prerequisites that must be read.   Have this core set of books and material be read and then test them via a free electronic test. Then after the test, the next set of books are read, and then another test is able to be taken which will also build upon the knowledge of the previous test and reading material.  If the material crosses subjects or professional types like European government, European history, European culture, European art etc., then the books can be read and those questions for those subjects can be integrated into the tests.  

How the testing would work is that you would log onto an online free account where you will click off each book in the curriculum you have read.  Mind you, there are numerous books on the same subject and thus the list of books does not have to be completed, and the system will say when you have read the minimum number of books needed to take each test. If you have yet to read the full course load, you will be taking a mini-quiz that tests you on only what you have learned thus far (this serves to show that you are reading the material).  If you fail a quiz or a test, you can re-take them as many times as it takes.  Also, each test will always build upon the previous ones so that you are constantly being tested on the knowledge you have acquired.  This can take the form of repeating questions from a previous quiz/test or integrating that knowledge into questions based on the new material. At the end of each test or specified number of tests you will receive free certification that you are qualified for a degree of equivalent value.  This means that if you qualify for an associate’s degree based on what you have learned, the system will award that to you.  You can achieve multiple associates, bachelors or potentially masters degrees.  Tests themselves will be multiple choice, fill in the blank, matching and other questions that do not require a non-computer to grade.  So no essays.  As such, your writing skills will not be tested. 

To fund this, publishers can add books into the appropriate reading curriculum via a small fee.  This also allows electronic books to be used as well, with publishers or even the authors providing the electronic copy for use, with ads to pay the authors or publishers for providing them based on the books popularity with regard to it being used as part of the material.  Advertisers can buy ads in the margins to pay for the site as well.  If a particular ad caters to what is being studied, then ads for that will be cheaper, and thus ads that do not relate to that subject will pay more (though all will be priced on web popularity of each electronic page).  Donations are also an acceptable form of money to keep the site running as well, but most of the courses will use books and other reading material that is either donated or where the copyrights have expired to ensure this program never becomes a fee for service site.

There will be a social network portion of the site where people can pose questions on the material they are reading.  People can then answer each other and grade each other on how useful their answers to each other were. Users can also post tips to each other on which books are easier to understand or ways to approach the material (the students can review the books or the other material in the comments section in a similar fashion to amazon's buyer review section).  It will also be set up so that discussions of the subject matter can occur to further stimulate learning.  Also, people can use show their progress publically if they so choose, where people can see their tests and their answers.  This also serves as a form of learning and does not become counterproductive for you can only take each test after you certify you have read the books via the quizzes (if it is an electronic copy of a book, the course will also log how long it takes for you to read each page and give tips on how to improve reading time or get more time out of the reading based on how well you did on the quizzes).  All of this creates a digital learning environment for students who cannot afford or do not have time to go to a traditional brick and mortar school (though hopefully this will sponsor meet ups at the libraries for likeminded students).

Conclusion:  This is a way to provide an alternative to colleges while propping up libraries.  It also gets people the education they desire at their own pace and in their own timing which benefits them.  The only reason why a writing element is not added is due to that costing money for people to grade the essays.  So if you are not good with multiple choice, word choice or fill in the blank type exams, you may struggle.  Also, multiple questions will be used to test the same knowledge and will be randomized to make sure that no two tests are the same.  This ensures that people taking a test multiple times are suitably challenged on the subject matter.  Obviously, this system caters toward history based lessons, people who study folklore, some math type courses that require reading and logic and anything that does not require writing or lab work.  Though it is possible that digital lab work can be done via interactive programming which will also grade on safety and procedure. Of course such systems will be developed over time as the curriculums are developed expanded and more subjects added.  The idea is simple, create a free learning environment for students or people who want to learn.  What can be wrong with that?  

Issue 684 You're allowed to insult people September 23, 2015

Ok, you are wondering probably how I can say you are allowed to insult people.  That it hurts others.  That the recipient receives emotional pain.  People may consider your statements racist.  Um, you are forgetting the first amendment and its responsibilities.

Insult away:  People need to stop worrying about insulting people.  They need to stop worrying about being politically correct.  But a college in New Hampshire made a list of banned words to fit the politically correct themes they believe in.  As such the word "rich" are people of wealth.  Senior is people of age.  But all this violates free speech.  Senior and rich are innocent words that are a describer, they are not designed to be hateful in the least.  However, our notions of sensibilities has changed to say that they are insulting.  I say they are not.  It is not calling a black person the "N" word, or a Spanish person the "S" word. These words like senior, rich or poor are not designed to be derogatory.  Even then, you're calling someone an idiot or a moron for doing something dumb is ok.  Saying your friend is a dummy and him calling you an ass as per your regular greeting to each other is insulting, but it's ok.  Insulting someone you do not know who happens to be six feet tall, bulging muscles and a face only a mother can love is also ok, though you suffer the consequences of being punched in the face.  Speech already has consequences socially, yet laws and codes of conduct try to ban them.  Last I checked, no law can restrict speech as per the first Amendment.  And if you do not like what is being said, you are under no obligation to listen as per your first amendment rights.

Conclusion:  If we follow this trend, every word used as a describer can potentially insult someone.  But insults are not something that we should concern ourselves with.  It is simple speech which has its meanings change only when we the people change those meanings.  So if you stop changing the meaning of senior, poor, low income, and the like and instead set a specific definition to describe people under specific or varied circumstances, then they are not insults, they become just words.  It does not stop the prideful from being hurt by a descriptor they do not like, but it is up to them to take it that way, not yours.  You should not be afraid to speak, yet changing meanings and claiming that a word can demean someone so much is just silly. If you think it is insulting, then do not say it, but do not force it on others.  People are already responsible for what they say due to social consequences.  What need do you have to punish someone who is already admonished publicly for saying something stupid in the first place (if what they said is dumb to begin with). You can speak freely.  Resist political correctness as your freedom of speech says you can.

Issue 683 Illegals and Businesses September 22, 2015

Apparently illegal immigrants put pressure on businesses.  What is that about?

Illegals and their pressure: Immigrants are unskilled labor.  We know this due to their lack of vocational training for most jobs, and their economic status in their home country.  As such they compete with our own unskilled and low skilled labor pool.  This means that these immigrants are cheaper to hire as their skills necessitate lower pay.  Additionally, they do not pay into Social Security (unless they have a fake number), and they do not pay taxes (unless they have been registered as an illegal that can stay for whatever reason).  As such, government also places pressure on businesses to care for immigrants and register them as illegals so that they receive tax breaks and thus channel money from the federal government into the State and local governments.  So our own low skilled population cannot get a job because they could and would be paid a higher wage than an illegal.  If you include the issue of competition and trying to get ahead business wise, this becomes a recipe for disaster for American workers.

Conclusion:  Immigration is a big deal.  Illegals coming over the border are actually taking jobs that would otherwise be filled by lower skilled members of the American citizenry.  As such, the illegals coming across the border must be halted.  Then a policy put in place to deal with current illegals in the United States.  But many of our laws already do this, but are not followed due to lack of enforcement.  So is there anything that can be done?  At this moment, I do not think there is as the Latin American community is a voting block and most politicians and the President do not want to risk losing their vote.

Issue 682 Iran and Nukes September 21, 2015

The Iran nuke deal that is being pushed by the current administration is in my opinion a bad idea.  Here is why.

Why it is a bad idea:  The goal of the deal is to make sure that Iran does not produce nuclear weapons to attack its neighbors like Israel or its Sunni Muslim neighbors like Saudi Arabia.  But like most deal with this nation in the past, the deal is an effort to stall for time.  Iran under the Ayatollahs has a history of taking advantage of the United States and is set to get money out of this deal as well as technological knowledge to their benefit.  In the mean time they can comply very easily with the deal for they never needed to refine the nuclear material themselves, as they can buy already refined or partially refined material, or use other forms of material that can be used to make the bomb.

Additionally, the current President of Iran is not the man he appears to be.  Presidents in Iran are selected by the Ayatollahs for being acceptable religiously, and in this case for wanting Israel dead.  Yes that is right, a radical Muslim cleric, the one with the real power in Iran, chose the current president of Iran to be 1 of 6 potential presidents.  The current Iranian leader is a former member of their security council, which is responsible for designing plans to remove Israel off the map, countering U.S. forces and strengthening Iran's control of the region.  Iran's current President is not a man of peace.  He is a man chosen for his appeal to western policy makers to fool them into lowering their guard.

Conclusion:  This deal is not going to work.  Iran is run by radical Muslims from the Iranian revolution.  This theocracy wants all non-Shiite Muslims dead.  What should be done is the continuing of pressure via sanctions until the nuclear facilities are dismantled and replaced.  Also, the only technology Iran should get is nuclear teach that cannot result in a bomb, and they should not get any money from the United States.  Simple, clean cut, effective.  Not some pandering policy which is hoping that Iran is sincere.

Issue 681 Eugenics: Supports racism September 18, 2015

Again we shall talk about eugenics to finish up the week.  In this case, I will discuss with you my readers on how this fake science supported racism.  Let us begin.

Racial support:  When eugenics was being implemented it used the ideas of Karl Marx that one race was superior to another.  Marx advocated that blacks and Hispanics were lesser peoples and eugenics which was born from progressivism which is the descendant of Marxism sought to prove that and then some.  It went so far that head measurements with the size of the cranial cavity were used to define intelligence.  This further extended to other groups as well such as gays, and Jews as seen in Nazi Germany with respect to their extermination policies which were using eugenics as their basis.  But, before all that, there was George Bernard Shaw and Margaret Sanger.  Shaw was a Fabian Socialist who believed in these principles of one race or even sets of people being above another.  It was his idea first for the gas chambers to cleanse undesirables which Hitler used.  Margaret Sanger on the other hand did not invent Planned Parenthood out of the idea of women's reproductive rights, but instead to cleanse the undesirables.  When she established her clinics they were almost all in black communities, and she tried to enlist black preachers into convincing their congregations into getting abortions.  In short voluntary genocide.  This racism of the idea of one group was superior to another played into Americans fears and woes with respect to anti-immigration groups, KKK and later neo-Nazi groups, and the disrespect for people of skin colors other than white for years.  As you can see, the damage done continues to this day with the continued existence of groups like the KKK.  This evil spread to Islam and fit in with ancient anger against Jews in the middle east (Islamic governments during WWII supported Hitler and his final extermination ideas).  It was even deeply rooted in the Cuban revolution where Chee, and Castro believed that blacks were nothing but degenerates.  We even have selective abortions based on if the child has a disability or their sex, again based on eugenics principles where women were inferior to men and needed the backing of this fake science to perpetuate this lie.

Conclusion:  Wherever there is racism, and science supporting it, wherever selective breeding of humanity is, eugenics has played a role.  Even assisted suicide and ideas of euthanizing the elderly potentially are partially influenced by eugenics legacy.  Now even population control groups are reviving ideas from the eugenics movement in the form of euthanasia and forced sterilization.  This legacy can be quashed in time, but it is going to take a lot of time to do so.

Issue 680 Eugenics: Superhumans September 17, 2015

Eugenics, if you read yesterday's issue is a really bad idea.  It sought to cleanse the unfit from society to strengthen the human race.  But some would seek to go a step further.

Supermen:  The eugenics principles advocates that races or peoples were superior to other races or peoples and would breed forth the idea that a race of supermen could be developed.  As such, Hitler used this science to put forth that by Aryans breeding with other Aryans would not only purify the "race" but create superior men and even soldiers.  This would later spawn the idea of selective breeding by scientists to create superior breeds, but in this case with dogs.  In other words selective breeding to bring about certain traits in animals and even in plants is a result of the eugenics movement.  It can even be argued that genetic manipulation and the study of animal traits to bring forth superior food that can grow in harsh climates, and animals that can perform specific tasks come from a basis in eugenics.  In fact, while this fake science would be used as an excuse to cause mass murder in Europe during WWII, it would pave the way for new types of food stock that would aid in solving issues of world hunger.  This selective breeding and manipulation can potentially create supermen, such as superior athletes that do not need steroids to enhance muscles, or perfect bodies for a particular sport.  This genetic alteration idea comes from sciences while perhaps based on the same ideas of eugenics are not eugenics.

Conclusion: Eugenics is evil, but the evil that bore it resulted in a few good things such as better food crops to aid in fighting world hunger.  Its selective breeding idea and now with the addition of genetic manipulation can mean a lot for the world.  Genetically modified crops can survive drought, dog breeds specifically designed to find lost victims on mountains or sniff out bombs, even breeding a domesticated shark is another potential here.  I will not praise eugenics (as you will see in tomorrow's issue), but what we took out of it that was potentially good was for the betterment of mankind.

Issue 679 Eugenics:Death Panels September 16, 2015

Eugenics is a pseudoscience.  It is based on cleansing the population of those seen as undesirables, while strengthening the human race.  Today I am going to go over why this fake science should never be followed.

What is Eugenics:  Eugenics came out of the progressive socialist movements of the late 19th and early 20th century.  It was based on the Marxist ideals that spawned progressivism were some races and peoples were genetically superior and thus meant to rule over them.  But in the 1930s, this pseudoscience in the United States would be taken to its most logical "peaceful" solution.  In the historical background of the book "Unbroken" it gives a nice little list of those who were targeted by this evil fake science.  Those the fake science sought to cleanse were: The feebleminded, insane, criminals, women who had sex out of wedlock (considered a mental illness at the time), orphans, the disabled, the poor, the homeless, epileptics, masturbators, the blind, the deaf, alcoholics, and girls whose genitals exceeded certain measurements.   As to how they would cleanse these groups, the methods varied, but euthanasia was encouraged, and in mental hospitals euthanasia was carried out on patients, or they were killed through lethal neglect or even outright murder.  Some patients at an Illinois hospital were dosed with milk from cows infected by tuberculosis, with the belief that the undesirables would perish (4 in 10 of these patients would die) (Unbroken page 11).  Forced sterilization was also popular by State governments with some 20,000 being sterilized by the State of California alone.

Conclusion:  As you can see, eugenics is a bad science that seeks to kill or remove thousands from the gene pool to gain a superior human race.  Thankfully, this fake "science" has become seen as backwards, but its legacy is still here.

Issue 678 Stateless Businesses September 15, 2015

Globalization has altered how businesses work.  In short, any business is in fact a national business if they ship around the globe.  As such, should we start thinking differently about businesses themselves?

Stateless Businesses:  Our concept of American Businesses, French Businesses, Chinese Businesses, comes from the age old concepts of territorial boundaries.  Basically, the business exists in a country and nowhere else unless they open up a headquarters in another country. But now that is unnecessary as the headquarters can exist in a singular country, a cruise ship, or even a person's laptop and still do business all over the world. This can be done thanks to the technology from the internet.  As such, businesses do not need countries to operate out of anymore.  This could potentially lead to businesses divesting themselves of national borders to escape taxation.  So a business can literally pick up and move to a tax haven if they so choose with little effort.  Even brick and mortar businesses can ditch the brick and mortar and operate on a network of computers throughout the world with employees seeing each other via video phones.  Deals can be made remotely and even discreetly without government knowledge.  These businesses also become almost impossible to tax as they exist as nothing more than a series of individuals.  All regulations that a normal business might follow become useless as the business exists out of islands in the Pacific, tax havens in Holland, or in the homes of individual people.  There may even be no employees to pay, and if there are people are strictly paid for quality of work.  Basically, these businesses are nearly impossible to track, tax and regulate. In short, businesses become like phantoms, existing as another entity that is above State control.  And you know what?  It is a very good thing.

Conclusion:  I wanted to give you my readers an idea into the potential of what a globalized business in the future will look like due to technological progression.  There is no need for any physical structure for the entire buying and selling structure is on the internet.  A single individual can present items on a cheap website, and when you click to buy, you are charged a traditional rate, but the business owner has no factory or warehouse, instead they have the actual factory in another business that produces your item deliver it directly to you while you are simply charged a little extra because you had to pay a middleman.  Alternatively, a factory can skip on using a middleman and ship to you directly without using other websites.  There is a large number of possibilities here as a single business can exist almost anywhere in the cheapest taxed country in the world.   No more patronage by government needed, no more need to follow most regulations.  It becomes a near free market paradise.  All that is left is to see how each business, and each entrepreneur develops in this new globalized market where taxes, and regulations on the workplace (excluding safety if you have a factory) cease to be of use.

Issue 677 College Cartel: What you can do September 14

There are a few things you can do to challenge the college cartel system.  Let's discuss.

Things to break a cartel:  To break this kind of cartel, we need dedication and a willingness to persevere.  This means the first step is alternative education methods.  So the taking of online courses, certificate classes, and certification tests all aid in defeating this system.  Obviously, you will need to be able to work in a non-classroom environment to do this, so if you lack the need for that kind of structure, then you are fine.  If you need the classroom structure, then do not follow this approach.  But, in all these cases, they rob the colleges of the big money that a four year degree provides and thus makes them adjust to accommodate the change in economics and education climate that you aid in creating.  

Another approach is skill based jobs.  Nearly all are "on the job training" or have classroom work that leads to finishing in hands on training.  These jobs include electricians, tractor repair and drivers, masons and the like.  Many jobs are open in these construction and factory based jobs due to the emphasis on college degrees instead of these skilled labor jobs like welding and battery testing.  These jobs promise $40,000 to potentially $100,000 a year jobs due to the lack of people needed to fill these positions.  So if you are willing to do the work, you dodge the need for a traditional degree.  

Your knowledge may be specialized and as such you can teach classes on what you know.  Basically, you can host private lessons or your own class on a subject and sell it while usurping the college system.  Alternatively, it is also possible to host your own on the job training programs once you start your own businesses.  But, this means creating a business first.

As to the other hard methods. We have petitioning the government claiming that colleges favor the rich (which they do to a degree).  As such, government making it so that we can get associate's degrees right out of high school like the Floridian system could work.  If that comes to pass, community colleges can be adapted to provide bachelor’s degrees at a cheaper rate which again undercuts private colleges.  As such, colleges will again be forced to alter their strategy.

Conclusion:  These are some basic ideas. Of course none of them are easy to accomplish as they will all take time.  However, colleges are already seeing a loss in revenue do to these alternative methods already.  The only real thing that is holding us back is government who can accelerate it or even change their narrative to make online, and other education methods more socially acceptable.  Basically say any education is a good one so long as it is equal to a college one with those being online courses, certificate courses, and certification tests.  Also, government must talk more about the skilled labor jobs that need to be filled.  If those are advertised more, then potentially a young adult may begin thinking of that as a possible job opportunity.  Much can be done to change the current system.  We just need to keep walking in the right direction.

Issue 676 College Cartel: Government September 11, 2015

Today we are going to look at the government's role in the college cartel.  Let us begin.

Government's folly:  The key failing of the government here is its advocating colleges as the sole proprietor of higher learning.  Public figures left and right promote colleges as the sole choice when there is a myriad of choices for higher learning that is equivalent to a college education or for other forms of professionalism.  For instance, online courses, certificate courses, and accreditation tests all void out the need for a college classroom as they show proficiency just as well as any typical college learning environment.  Also, the government ignores skills based jobs like mechanics, battery testers, electricians and the like where businesses are struggling to fill these jobs, with many offering on the job training.  Government perpetuates the idea that you can only be qualified, or "Smart" by getting a degree when we all know that it is not true.  But this plants the ideas in American minds that they are not good enough if they cannot go to college.  That they are cut off from that more profitable job.  And colleges feed into it as they will make money hand over fist due to this mentality.  Of course government, believing its own lie, and politicians not wanting to look bad, avoid the issue of the loans being given out to students that are becoming unpayable.  If government stopped the loans increasing, and started to promote alternate forms of education, then colleges will see the writing on the wall (in my opinion) and thus lower their costs and/or transform themselves into a more streamlined entity to adopt the alternative education models.  But government and the politicians are afraid to be the guys and gals that say no to student loans, and yes to alternate education.  How silly is that.

Conclusion:  Government as usual is causing a problem.  This time they are perpetuating an untruth, and compounding people's financial troubles with respect to student loans.  We need government to stop the stupidity and start preaching alternative education in all its forms.  It is supposed be having college as one potential stepping stone to a career, not the sole proprietor.  See you all next Monday to talk about what we can do to break the college cartel.

Issue 675 College cartel: Degrees September 10, 2015

So we have talked about loans and about credits, but what about the college degree itself?  There is some funny business going on here as well.

The degree scam:  Let us first start with the fact that around 12% of jobs actually require a college degree.  Yes, that is right, only 12%.  Yet many people think you need a degree to be a writer, or even an artist.  Last I checked a certificate class can aid you in those without extra expenses.  The only degrees that I know for certain are needed is those of doctors and lawyers due to complexity.  But there is issues there as well.  The education a doctor gets and the education a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner gets with respect to diagnosis is the same.  As such, doctors do not need all that extra schooling unless they are going to specialize in another medical area as well.  But they are required to get their doctorate by the boards who run colleges and license these professionals.  They have that requirement because they know it is cost prohibitive to try and be a doctor due to the many years of schooling and thus it artificially limits the amount of doctors that can be practicing at any given time.  As a result, the number of doctors being limited leads to a direct increase in the salaries of these doctors due to demand (now even at the expense of not having enough doctors in America).  Pharmacists too, have this issue as they need to take at least 6 years of schooling (including pre-requisite programs), but the knowledge base on drugs only requires two years.  So would not a bachelor's degree be better to include the knowledge, and the hands on learning once the classroom work is done?  It would, but limiting supply to raise salaries comes first for those who decide degree requirements.  Then there is lawyers.  They require masters and doctorates, but if they made it so it could be studied right from the very first year of college, there would be more lawyers which makes them cheaper to hire.  Additionally, according to studies (source is the economist and New York Times) the final year of schooling for a lawyer appears to be redundant, and they are now considering making it optional (but law firms still have to retrain the students once they graduate due to complete lack of experience and the degrees not matching up with real life job conditions).  So let us review, only 12% need to get a degree, and the degrees are established to make it harder to get by making them more expensive to obtain.  Something is wrong here in my opinion.

Conclusion:  What this all tells me is that certificate courses, bachelor’s degrees, on the job training (OTJ) and associates degrees with OTJ combined to equal a bachelor's seems to be the best solution.    As such, most Doctorates and Master's degrees are outmoded unless something more specialized is needed to be studied.  But even then, a yearlong course can replace even those specialized degrees for special skills as well.  However, we are stuck with multiple people needing degrees because jobs simply say so due to colleges being propped up as the place to learn.  Meanwhile we could have saved our money if the degrees matched real world conditions, did not intentionally limit supply to increase salaries, and actually stuck to the professions that require specialized knowledge.  We have been had in many respects, and it should change.

Issue 674 College Cartel: Loans September 9, 2015

Continuing our series, we step into the issue of college loans.  Here is my reasoning as to why this is a part of the college cartel scheme.

The Loans:  Loans are used to do many things.  You can use the money to open a business, buy a car, or fix your house.  But we also use it to afford expensive education like college.  We already know that college credits compound the amount of money needed to spend to get our degree and graduate thanks to my previous issue, but did you know it is rigged to be perpetually more expensive?  Apparently, whenever the federal government increases the size of the loans toward students, the colleges rack up their prices and then the government who is giving students financial aid increase that assistance (usually in the form of a loan) again.  In other words, the colleges know that they can just jack up their prices on everything and the government will pay for it.  Also, the banks who give out these loans are insured if students default.  So banks get money from the students as they attempt to payback their loans (with interest) and if they default, the government gives the bank money equal to the money lost (possibly including accrued interest).  You see what is happening here.  The college profits, the banks profit, but the students are stuck with unpayable loans and the government just keeps perpetuating the problem by giving out more money.

Conclusion:  The loan situation has devolved into a scam, and it has to stop.  This loan situation where some of my friends owe $100,000 dollars or more is absolutely ridiculous.  And you know what, it pisses me off.  I do not owe any debt thanks to a combination of me saving my money from first grade on up and stocks that my parents aided me in investing my own money in.  With that I paid $25,000 of my own money with my parents paying the rest.  But, if I did not have the credit requirement, and if the colleges priced their education services to meet with real affordable costs, I would potentially be at minimum, $10,000 richer (and my parents richer too).  Loans should not be required to get a degree, not like this which places people in poverty through debt.

Issue 673 College Cartel: Credits September 8, 2015

Colleges require not just specific classes to get your degree, but a specified amount of credits.  These credits are a scam to make you spend more money.  Here is my reasons as to why.

College credit scam:  You are going to college to get your degree in your particular field, but you are required to earn a certain amount of credits toward not only that degree, but a series of other fields like life sciences, math’s, and others.  Then on top of this, you need to earn whatever remaining credits in whatever classes are open that you can take.  I had to earn a total of 124 credits just to get graduate, but I was only allowed to take maximum of 45 credits toward my degree (I took 43) and if I went over, I would be penalized $1,000 per credit I go over.  Of course the degree also required additional credits to be taken in various classes with the idea of expanding our world view.  This was sound reasoning and these credits crisscrossed with those needed to graduate as well.  Problem, when I tried taking a minor, the credits, including the core ones for the classes I needed for the minor, did not count toward any of the minors I could have gone for.  I would have to take the same class twice in some instances just to achieve a minor in any field (The total number of minors I could have gotten if the system allowed for it was three minimum including European studies, domestic policy studies and finally foreign policy studies).  All the additional minors I could have taken would require me to take another year (money which me and my parents did not have, or would have had if not for the credit requirements and restrictions).  In short, the credit system, gypped me of my being able to become more marketable with respect to my degree (basically my college was charging $1000 per credit taken).  Also, I could have graduated a year and a half early if it was not for the credit system as well.  Can you imagine saving a year and a half’s worth of money toward a college?  I came in wanting to study politics, so I dived in and got all my requirements and the main course load done in the first year and a half leaving just basic requirements like language just to graduate.  But no, I had to stay, and wait to get the rest of my credits when I could have been applying for jobs over a year earlier.  I think you understand what I am getting at when I say, just give us a series of required classes for our degrees so we can get in and get out with a job as fast as possible.

Conclusion:  I may have come off as preachy, a or even standoffish here, but when you then compare the college degree to ones you can make yourself with online courses and certificate classes that are equivalent and cost significantly less, you begin to see that colleges with credit requirements force us to stay longer than needed.  It forces us to spend more than we should for a degree that we need to get a good job.

Issue 672 Business and cost Reductions September 7, 2015

Here we will discuss ways for businesses to reduce costs without having to go the extremes of shortening hours, or firing people.  Let us begin.

Cost reductions:

1) Receipts:  If your business has regular customers, you can do one of two things with your receipts.  The first is establish an email receipt for you customers so that you need not have to waste as much paper on a printed receipt (this can even be done through an app, and provide price comparisons between fellow and competing stores).  Alternatively you can team up with the banks to have something similar to an online receipt, but the bank will provide the itemized list on the electronic bank statements.  Both methods save tremendous amounts of paper, and thus provide savings for the business.

2) Paperless records: In many cases, business must keep track of sales and payroll.  By using an electronic record system, a business can reduce paper use, save space for more stock by not having to file as much away or waste time doing so.  These records can literally keep track of everything and provide the most up to date inventory records negating time and effort needed to check the inventory daily or weekly.  It is also possible for those same records to generate an order based on past sales which can then be reviewed before sending it out.

3) Cheaper goods: A business owner needs to be conscious of costs and thus get goods of quality from multiple sources (this also prevents in demand items from going out of stock).  As such, establishing a network of places to buy from is essential.  Alternatively, with 3D printing, you need only the schematics and base materials of a good to produce.  Therefor you can print items that are simple to make and sell like toys.  Most costs come from the manufacturing process (ex: car parts cost about 90% less when made with a 3D printer because labor and wasted material costs are removed), and thus cheap goods become even cheaper, thus making your business more competitive.

4) Eliminate brick and mortar:  Costs are also due to rent and property taxes.  As such, if you can run your business out of a cheaper location, like a show store, then you can mail out the rest to the customers from whatever you do not keep on site.  

5) Offer new services:  It is important to continuously offer new services that are demanded by customers.  By doing so, you can bring people into your place of business.  Older products that most people do not want can be sold at a discounted price to make up for lost revenue while the newer items make up for the lost profit.  

Conclusion:  These are just the base examples that modern businesses with internet access and new technology can use.  Elimination of things like coupons issued by the store or switching them to an account that can be used to buy coupons saves money as businesses need not print them out on a regular basis. Even an electronic display to automatically display price changes or more self-checkout systems can also reduce costs and provide savings.  Possibilities are endless, though as a consequence, less people will need to be hired as a result of overall efficiency.  But, if these efficiencies are used to expand business, then it negates that negatives and can even mean raises for current workers.

Issue 671 Human Machine ?! September 4, 2015

Are we declaring ourselves machines?  And is that dehumanizing us?  That is the question in today's issue.

Bio-machine:  Have you heard people and documentaries calling the human body a bio-mechanical machine?  I have, but perhaps we are hearing it too much.  You see, by calling us a machine, or relating our body parts to say a computer or a robot, we may be demeaning ourselves.  Machines are used for labor and making life easier, but when we begin to hear it about ourselves being machines, do we think less of ourselves?  Do we begin to see other people as less human and more as a cog in the machine for us to do one less thing?  I am concerned that maybe we are hearing that we are machines too much and that it is changing the way we view ourselves and each other.  

Conclusion:  When people hear something often enough they begin to believe it.  By hearing that we are machines we may come to the point that people see themselves as machines.  Morally speaking, this may result in people not seeing people anymore, and that leads in my opinion to a devaluation of human life.  Seeing people as less human is troubling and may lead to things like another eugenics movement or potentially worse if we do not take precautions.  Though there is also the potential for this to go the other way, and we elevate machines to a higher level, though this would potentially occur when artificial intelligence progresses further.  Words have power and it will be interesting and a little disturbing to see where we end up with this.

Issue 670 You're always in Church September 3, 2015

Have you heard the expression that you are always in Church?  Well here is a basic idea of what it means.

You're in Church:  Your body's a temple.  This means that your soul and your spirit reside in your flesh, and these are gifts from God (or whatever deity you follow).  If you do not have faith, then you can just simply go from the spiritual perspective and it becomes the spiritual nature of your inner self.  However, in both these instances, the moral teachings of your faith or nonbelief follow you.  They do not just exist while inside a holy place or your mind.  You must use and follow them everywhere you go.  As such, your good behavior is not limited to your reverence, your church or holy place for you carry that holy place with you.  You are that holy shrine.  If your actions and morals do not match, then are you truly faithful?  Are you moralistic?  No, for if your morals do not match, then you are a hypocrite and your word is worthless.  Our actions are meant to be carried out everywhere, not just in one place.

Conclusion:  Using the idea that your body is a church, and that God is always with you aids those who struggle with the idea that they must be moralistic or follow the ethical codes of behavior outside of the physical church.  Likewise, those of non-faith require a similar idea, but in this case society watching them to maintain their moral beliefs outside of the target audience of their behavior.  Basically, humanity is so flawed, that we need to believe we are being watched to maintain our own personal codes of conduct.  We need a reinforcement or else we forget how to be genuine.  Some may disagree, but think about it.  What is the backbone keeping us from misbehaving as the faithful?  It is God, and the belief that we will be punished for our sins.  Non-believers only have society or something else like reincarnation to maintain such a backbone, but that is assuming they even concern themselves with such beliefs.  Hence again, the body as a temple, God is with you always, and not wanting to be the unauthentic, hypocritical and un-moralistic person.

Issue 669 Your right to die September 2, 2015

If assisted suicide is legal, does this mean you have a right to die?  Let us discuss.

Do we have a right to die?:  Assisted suicide in hospitals is just that, suicide.  This form of suicide is meant to aid people in ending their physical suffering from disease or catastrophic injury. But if we have a right to have assisted suicide for physical pain, does this mean we have a right to end our lives any time we wish?  Basically, if you have a right to end your own suffering with help, then you have a right to end your suffering without help.  Additionally, you may commit suicide for whatever reason you now wish.  People can commit suicide for emotional, or even for insurance money as well (if a person has a right to die, then the insurance company must hand over the money in case of a suicide).  Basically, once they allowed assisted suicide to become legal, it becomes a double standard to allow only one form or one reason for suicide and not the others.  In other words, the door for the argument that we can choose how and when we die has been opened.

Conclusion:  With some States permitting assisted suicide it makes the argument easier to allow for assisted suicide for emotional problems.  Once that part of the argument has passed, it then leaps to the next level which makes it that insurance money cannot be denied beneficiaries of the suicide victim.  Basically, the law opens up lawsuits for this to happen.  Once this occurs, it can be surmised that people would be allowed to commit suicide on their own, and even given ways of doing so which cause the least amount of pain and suffering.  This will also mean special hospital rooms or other special facilities so that it can be proven that a person committed suicide and was not murdered (for insurance purposes and to negate the need for a criminal investigation).  Basically, you will be allowed to commit suicide so long as no one is harmed in the process.  This is the logical conclusion of the right to die debate.  The only issue left now is for someone to sue for the right to commit suicide for emotional trauma for it to occur and cause the dominos to fall into place.

Issue 668 Abortion: Potentially Bannable?! September 1, 2015

This issue will look at some facts about how many abortions are conducted at each stage of pregnancy and implications of abortions at each stage.  Let us begin.

Abortion facts:

1) In the first week to two weeks, the egg is not fertilized. The end of the 2nd week once the menstrual period starts to end is when a women is most likely to get pregnant.  As such, once sex occurs at the end of the menstrual period, the women has the highest chance to become pregnant (occurring in the third week at the end of menstruation).  An egg and sperm meet in the fallopian tubes at which time conception occurs. From there the fertilized egg commences cell division and descends the fallopian tubes.  Sperm which lives for up to five to six days may not have interacted with the egg yet however for the egg must be far enough down in the tube for this to occur.

Hormone treatments like birth control which prevent periods and the egg falling aid in preventing the fertilization of the egg.  Thus it acts as a form of contraception and is not abortion (I am fine with all forms of contraception that I know of). The morning after pill prevents the fertilized egg from settling in the uterine wall once it descends and can potentially be considered an abortion pill, but that is because it prevents the fertilized egg from latching onto the uterine wall.   Depending on your views, the morning after pill is abortion, but you are not considered pregnant until the fertilized egg has latched onto the wall.

2) Once latched to the uterine wall the fertilized egg develops further.  Upon week five the nervous system develops and can, depending on how fast development occurs, actually feel pain.  On week’s six to seven, the heart forms, limbs develop and sensory organs like eyes and ears begin to develop.  This is where right to life people want to be with, with respect to compromises.

In week five (their ideal goal) they want it banned for the child can feel pain.  Though some will settle for the heart as the heart pumping is generally a recognized symbol of a living being, and is most easily understood.  As such, abortion if it were to be banned at a stage of development, it would most likely be based on when the child is most recognizable as a living human, which would be once the heart forms in weeks six and seven and begins to beat.  Up to the first 12 weeks is the 1st trimester with 89 to 91% of all abortions taking place.

3) Weeks 13 to 27 is where final development of the body before growing ever larger.  7.8% of abortions happen here.  In this instance, the abortions here are largely unnecessary however as the woman's life is not in danger at all as far as what I have read is concerned.

4) With respect to the third trimester, this is where abortion is banned save for a woman's life being in danger.  In this case, only 1% to 1.4% of abortions occur here.  What should be understood as well is that as technology progresses, the need for this exception of saving the mother's life continues to shrink (thank God for science).

Obviously, after the third trimester, the baby is born. 

At this point I would like to add some facts about rapes and pregnancies from the Washington Post article "The claim that the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy is ‘very low’".  In this case the article cites a 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, where 4,008 adult women were interviewed, with only five percent of them becoming pregnant among the ages of 12 to 45.  The study also included factors like drugs and alcohol, and was designed around finding out about actual sexual abuse (the definitions of rape actually varies per State and may include voluntary partners who may be a few years apart, and potentially even adultery which is still considered a sex crime in some places).  The study was done over the course of three years.  Based on this data from the article, it can be proposed that we can safely ban abortion even in light of potential rape victims as an exception and thus limit the abortion to the first trimester, or even before week five potentially depending on how conservative you are with science and beliefs.

(64,000 women were raped between 2004 and 2005, [3,200 potential pregnancies from rape here].  13 million in 2010 were either raped or were assaulted with intent to rape, but the article says that because of the varying definitions of rape, that 13 million is about half of what it is.  As such, taking that number [including attempted rape] 325,000 women potentially got pregnant from the assaults)

Conclusion:  So it is possible to ban abortion from week five on to uphold life when the nerves form.  It is possible to compromise to get it bannable on week six because of the heart being formed.  Before week five though is a push, and requires people to know more about their own biology and thus science to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place.  

People should be given information into ways to prevent becoming pregnant in the first place to negate the inevitable keeping of first trimester abortions for at least the first half.  However the 2nd trimester is bannable and the third looks likely to be bannable as well as technology advances to keep both mother and child alive in instances of potential life endangerment (remember, only about one percent are done in the third trimester).  So whether you believe through science or through religion, abortion at certain stages can be potentially banned.