Issue 536 Do Regulations Prevent Unemployment February 26, 2015

Well, I am here to say, yes it does.  Even though I am a libertarian, I have to admit that regulations can prevent unemployment, but they do at a cost.  Let's discuss.

Regulations slow progress:  Ok, the reason why regulations are able to stave off unemployment is because they slow down the creative and destructive influences of a free market economy.  So the reason why we do not have a better more comfortable seat belt is due to regulations setting a standard that everyone follows out of fear of being sued for breaking that standard.  The internet is not as free as it can be is due to the licensing of who can make Ethernet pipes.  How about the oil companies and fossil fuel fired power plants?  They are kept alive by regulations by artificially increasing the costs to study and implement safer and cheaper to make nuclear power.  These regulations partly exist for safety, but also to protect the established businesses that exist, but would be supplanted by the newer businesses and technology.  However, when regulations are slowly repealed these established companies have a better chance of adapting to newer technology and shifts in public attitudes.  As such, they are able to train employees in the new standards and technologies without fear of being completely left behind.  So slower progress due to regulations means more people can adapt to changes and thus they are less likely to lose their jobs.

Conclusion:  While I do not want people to lose their jobs, regulation if applied wrongfully creates monopolies of power for established businesses.  As such more regulations become established to keep the biggest businesses from having to compete with smaller upstarts that may usurp them.  So this is a double edged sword.  As such, regulations implemented strictly for safety are good.  However, any regulations no matter how well intentioned are bad as you are in fact preventing the creation of jobs thus stopping the employment of others to save the jobs of those who already have them.

Issue 535 Direct Taxation (the Banks) February 25, 2015

So we are all familiar with the income tax and that it is generally collected through our employers.  But when the crisis in Greece hit where they took money directly out of peoples bank accounts demonstrated that the governments of the world can take our money and the banks would not resist.  So what does this mean for the future of taxation and our money?

What I believe to be a trend:  I feel that government may stop concerning themselves with how much we earn from our jobs and instead be concerned with the total amount of money we actually have.  Reason being is that we are shifting to an all-electronic future where no other form of physical currency could really exist.  As such, governments can simply look at your bank accounts to accurately gage how much money you acquired that year and then take it out themselves.  Any deductions can be seen by simply having a program to analyze all your purchases and charitable donations and thus deduct them from the overall money that was meant to be taxed.  So in short, as you can no longer hide how much money is in your bank account, the government can just take all the money they see you have acquired based on whatever standards they see fit.  So no more accountants, filings, or any other expensive methods of tax collection, as a simple program would do the entire job for the IRS and similar tax collection bodies.  

What this means for US:  Well, we will no longer have any privacy with respect to what we buy.  The government will know how much junk food we buy, how many magazine subscriptions we have and anything embarrassing we may have bought.  In short, the government will be able to blackmail us with our purchases alone.  But this is not the worst part.

Our worst part is that all sources of money we get are now able to be taxed.  The $25 dollars we get from a birthday card, to a friend paying back a no interest loan.  All of that small stuff becomes income to the government.  A loan from the bank and even money gathered from inheritance no matter how small becomes taxable.  As such, the government will tax us on every penny we get no matter how small, because they simply can.  An all-electronic system invites this issue.  Tax havens could not even exist as the government will take the money out of any of your other accounts that are not in the tax haven, and can possibly take it out by force if you use that account to purchase a good from anywhere (yea they will hack it and take it) just to get what they think you owe.  You think the government is not that petty?  Think again.  Greece took 10% out of their own people’s bank accounts and prevented people from taking their money out to prevent that.  So as Greece as an example (a Democratic Country), we could be next.

Conclusion:  Yea, this is a worst case scenario.  But, it is a distinct possibility as we progress toward an all-electronic banking system.  There will no longer be hiding money under the bed.  So I write this for you my readers to be wary of what the future holds.

Issue 534 Retirement age increase February 24, 2015

So, it is being tossed around yet again.  The idea to increase the retirement age once again.  Let us discuss what is being considered.

At what age do they want you to retire:  Well, at current, the retirement age for social security for my generation is 67.  This is due to the change made by President Ronald Reagan for my generation and those that will come after.  This my dear readers was great as it made sure that at least my parents will get to see some of the money they put into the Social Security system.  But this is not enough for my generation.  In fact, those who retire early and collect at the earlier retirement age of 62 are harming the chances of Social Security still being there.  Also, although it is good I can't retire and receive Social Security till I am 67, it still does not increase the chances of keeping the social welfare program around beyond 2035 (an estimate based on the board of trustees who govern Social Security).  So the proposal that is going around is to increase the minimum retirement age to 64 with the same penalty, and the main retirement age to 70.   I don't think I need to tell you that this will ensure Social Security will be around a little longer as it has worked before.  Additionally, this will not affect people already retired or those within 20 to 30 years of retiring.  It will only affect those who have at least 3 or more decades before they can retire.  This ensures that these individuals both born and unborn can plan, and work in a way that will make it so they can live the way they want up until the new retirement age hits.  This ensures some level of fairness.  

Conclusion:  Social Security is a beloved welfare program that has been around since the late 1930s as a method to help people retire earlier so as to make way for younger workers to enter the workforce.  If you don't believe me, you simply have to read President FDR's speeches on the subject.  As it is such a loved program, people want to keep it around, and thus methods abound are being proposed, but ultimately not implemented due to fear of reprisal from the American Populace.  So I am here to tell you all that at least I am willing to wait that extra couple of years to retire, so that Social Security can last long enough to help the baby boomers live out their twilight years.  In fact, I would say get rid of the early retirement age completely so that more money can be saved, and then deny benefits to those making a specific level of income per year after they retire.  Those two things would benefit everyone greatly and we may even be able to afford to give those people with the least a little more money so that they can survive without having to resort to other welfare programs and the stress of applying and staying on them.  I want to protect our seniors, so I am willing to make the sacrifice.  Are you?

Issue 533 Downsizing February 23, 2015

Downsizing can be a great thing.  In fact, it is why people have looked into the small homes movement.  The fact is, downsizing equals cheaper living and thus it is perfect for those looking to retire.

Why retirees should downsize:  Let us face it, the cost of living just keeps increasing.  And you know what, retirees exist on a limited income for at some point the money stops coming in, or at the least in very limited quantities.  So what happens with downsizing is that living becomes cheaper.  Property wise, living in a smaller home, or even apartment, or smaller place in general means less taxes and maintenance.  So you could go from paying something like $8,000 a year in property taxes, to paying half that or less.  Those savings go a long way without even factoring in cheaper maintenance costs.  Smaller living means less energy to heat the home, and less energy to clean.  As such, that means more savings.  Also, slimming down allows you to pocket some of the value of the home you had been living in to temporarily supplement your income.  This is the cost savings aspect.

The impacts on your body are also good.  What I mean by this is that you need not have a big house to hold all your stuff.  In fact, downsizing means getting rid of excess stuff you know you do not need.  This can become a stress relief.  Also, smaller living means having to make less effort to get from point A to point B in your home.  As such, there is less wear and tear on the body.  We do not need a big home past a certain point as we no longer have kids, or roommates to live with.  In addition, the earlier you move the less stressful it is to do so.  So basically, it is less stress and less clutter which is healthy.

Conclusion:  Downsizing can be beneficial for those who are retired, whose kids have moved out, or just for those who feel their home is way too big for them.  What will result is cost savings and a more positive living arrangement for these people who decide downsizing is right for them.

Issue 532 Auto Enrolment for Retirement February 20, 2015

I was reading an article in the economist about retirement (though I myself am very far away from retiring).  People are not saving money and that is becoming a detriment to people when they want to retire.  So the Economist has proposed auto retirement as a solution.  Is this the right idea?  Let us discuss.

Why auto enrolment works:  The reason the economist supports this idea is because it boosts participation into the retirement programs by 40% (this is their numbers).  Well, that is a very big number.  Also, the economists pointed out that things like Social Security and other social welfare programs cannot keep up the pace if so many people were to retire without a plan.  So baby boomers and the like in America will strain the country's Social Security system and its welfare programs that will be used to supplement that income when money from Social Security is not enough.  So the people at the Economist see more people saving for retirement as the only solution to getting through a possible financial crisis.

Is it worth it?:  I know that retirement and financial independence from a government body is worth it.  I mean, 40% more people saving means less financial resources government will have to use to help people, and less people having to work longer or struggle with money later on in life.  But forcing people is something a government body should not do, and yet they do so with Social Security.  Then having businesses where you are employed do the same thing becomes unnerving.  I mean, it is saying you are too dumb to save money on your own.  Too stupid to plan ahead.  Blah blah blah.  Retirement is worth it in my opinion, but I opted in to save, but what about those who need a push?  

Conclusion:  What I have found is that learning what to do to invest in a 401K, into stocks, and other savings tools was very difficult to do.  In fact, I still do not really understand it all myself.  I learned what these things do from my parents, who while only about a decade away from retirement do not understand how it works really either.  They just know that they have accounts and stocks with other forms of savings which they hope will carry them through for as long as possible.  So auto enrolment is not my definition of a solution.  It is education.  Dumbing the learning down so that a dope like me can understand how it all works and figure out how much I would need to save to have a specific amount of money to last ten to 30 years when I eventually retire.  I want to be able to invest in the stock market, form a 401K or other financial savings tool without having to go to a broker.  I think that the reason people do not invest into saving for retirement is because that they do not understand how (in addition to not understanding why).  Therefore, give me a service or an education program that gives me what I asked, a simple and easy method to know and understand when and where to save so I can retire and actually take it easy.  I don't want to be forced to retire when it's inconvenient, but when it makes sense and is beneficial to me.  Education is the key that is my solution.

Issue 531 Digital Monopolies: Break them? February 19, 2015

A business monopoly is a business that has total control over a specific area of business.  A digital one, is the same concept, but just pertains to the internet.  In the past, these things we call monopolies have been deemed very bad and that they cause high prices, and other negative impacts on the economy.  Well, that is not really the case with internet monopolies, so let us discuss.

Why digital monopolies are harmless:  A digital monopoly is basically a digital giant like Facebook, which controls most of the social networking area of the internet.  Google controls searches and Amazon selling goods.  However, we are not limited to them to buying, searching or socializing on the internet.  Numerous others still exist like Myspace, FaceTime, Bing, Go Daddy and the like.  Despite being smaller, we can still use their services.  In contrast, the original monopolies on trains, oil and the like had true monopolies where no other services could compete.  In the digital landscape, everyone no matter how big is replaceable.  And in fact, because giants like Google, Facebook and Amazon are replaceable we know that they are not real monopolies.  They are just really good companies that the world has recognized and thus they will continue to be used so long as their services continue to be useful to the masses.  You see, all the internet giants can be supplanted by others.  Bing, or another upstart as a search engine could possibly one day take the leading role over Google.  And this cycle can happen to that replacement as well.  

But what about when they buy their competitors or upstarts you say?  Simple, the buying of competitors and upstarts is a good thing.  For one, it may introduce new services that we do not have yet to existing ones we use.  So Google may add the new service, but so will Bing, and others because if you have not noticed, they copy each other’s successes.  Thus, if enough good ideas are focused into one place outside of these giants, Google, Facebook and the like could be replaced.  What this also means is that the acquisitions sponsor more startups.  Some hope to create a useful service that will become just as big as Facebook or Google, while others create ideas that they seek to be bought in the first place.  As such, more variety is created with more unique possibilities for us consumers to enjoy.

Conclusion:  All roads lead to innovation.  The fact is, monopolies on the internet really do not exist, for costs to create something on the internet is very small (though keeping it going may not).  Right now, I am enjoying Google's' free blogging service to reach you, my readers, but some day, a better service may come along and replace Google, or even buy them if they become big enough.  As business constantly reinvents itself along with innovations on goods and services, those who remain stagnant will fall by the wayside.  It is the creative destruction of the market, and I look forward to seeing where it will lead the internet.  So no, do not break Google, Amazon, Facebook, or the others.  They are doing their part to create an even better internet.

Issue 530 Privacy and the Internet: Opt in switch February 18, 2015

There has been talk about how you really have no privacy on the internet.  More specifically, service providers and websites like Google, Facebook, etc., are selling your personal information to make a profit.  Some of you know this already, and some of you do not, so let us discuss.

Defining personal data:  So on the internet, personal data is not just your bank account numbers (which these companies do not sell).  Instead it is all the websites you visit and your personal preferences on the web.  So if you like anime, or cartoons they will know, and even how often you watch a particular show.  They will know if you do online banking by how often you visit a banks website to log in.  Heck, they will even know if you watch porn, and how often you search for your favorite porn star.  All this data is then bundled, and sold to other websites, and services which then customize advertisements or searches to meet what you like.  But, this disturbed people for obvious reasons, including the fact that this data is used to make a profit off of you.  

Thus the opt in switch:  An opt in switch is a proposal by some people to websites like Facebook and Google, so that people who want to maintain privacy can have it.  Basically, you would have to say ok for a website or web service to use your data and sell it.  Very simple idea, but with major impacts.

For one, these companies would potentially lose money.  Reason being, the buying and selling of data supports business operations.  This includes making, or altering websites to suit us, the regular internet community who may visit their websites or use their services.  So that search may take longer than normal, or you may miss that advertisement for that tool set when you visit a home depot site.  It is really hard to tell you my reader how different it would be for businesses to attract your business on the internet if an opt in switch existed.  They could not put your favorite actor, website or item at the top of a search list.  Literally, these websites and services could not offer as many deals, or specials as all that data we give them every day provides them with the ability to customize our internet experience to us.  Sure, they profit off of all this, but if they did not, they would not be able to exist in the first place.

Conclusion:  The internet is a public square, where all information is free to move around.  This includes our data on personal preferences, tastes, and what we may have just bought online.  An opt in switch does sound like a nice idea, but I personally do not know.  Is there any real disadvantage to allowing these websites and services share our information on how often we update a wish list on Amazon, or search Godzilla on Google?  The only real data I am worried about is my bank account, as I just do not want my really important data stolen.  As such, data of useless searches or fancies has no negative impact on me so long as these companies integrity remains intact.  And last I checked, they do really well keeping the really important information safe.  So no opt in switch for me, in my case, but I cannot speak for you.  Therefore if you think this is a worthy idea, then pursue it, if not, then Que Sera sera.