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.