Government Healthcare and Keynsian Economics

I believe the government subsidizes healthcare because they REFUSE to encourage Americans to consume less.  They say, "This could only hurt the economy."  However, by encouraging lethargy and excess over the years, the government has, in essence, subsidized wasteful spending by the citizenry. 

It is always one subsidy to take care of the short-falling of another subsidy!  They argue:  "Last time, we just didn't spend enough.  This is the reason for this RECURRING situation."  This is a very circular argument to say the least!  It is a dogma that continually adds to the inevitable downside of these type policies; the consequences become more serious the longer we continue.

So, what happens if the government were to take a different approach?  What if, instead, they decided to form a committee to gather scientific evidence about all the health risks directly tied to our eating habits.  In addition, the committee would build a strong case and start initiatives to better educate the public about the consequences which exist from such behavior.  However, they avoid any subsidies, which can only create false demand and create hostility among market competitors due to fairness.

Likely, as with cigarettes, sound education would finally begin to overcome many of our vices (except for those that continue to CHOOSE to take part in risky behavior).  This would entail a likely decline in the market for unhealthy foods and behaviors.  The government would have you believe this is horrendous!  We have lost jobs! 

However, what happens in reality is a reallocation of employment to sectors such as the health food industry, gyms, etc.  This is a natural process.  Retrospectively, what occurred was that by subsidizing special interests, the government spurred a sort of false demand in economic sectors which otherwise would not have existed.  WITH THE USE OF SUBSIDIZING POLICIES, THE GOVERNMENT REALLOCATES EMPLOYMENT TO AREAS OF THE ECONOMY WHERE IT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN!

This is an unavoidable fallacy of Keynesian economics. Follow @DerrelWalters

Made in America: A Logical Solution to the Economy and Unemployment

Are you sick of the high unemployment and the sluggish economy here in the U.S.A.?  Then, hear me out.  I too have become tired of politicians dancing around real issues.  Here, I outline a common sense plan to address unemployment and the economy.  It is my perspective this approach is the most logical and easiest to implement of any plan I have heard.  As well, it allows the free market and the correlated action of consumers, a synergistic coalition, to curb the current decay of the American economy.  It will increase domestic manufacturing and increase the spending power of the middle and  lower classes of American consumers.

Please consider the elements of the following plan:

1. Place the flag of the country of origin on the UPC code of all manufactured goods sold in the U.S.A.

This policy forces consumers to make a conscious decision about which countries in the world they wish to support by purchasing the goods manufactured there.  I strongly believe this puts very influential political power in the hands of the general population, which is at the roots of the morals on which this great nation was founded.  For example, say some sovereign nation began to commit atrocities towards some targeted group of people.  In addition, let us assume that there is a manufacturing infrastructure in that nation that economically depends on its ability to export consumer goods to the U.S.A.  If this policy were in effect, consumers could immediately implement boycotting strategies based on those peoples' own opinions, essentially giving the public the power to place swift justice to those countries without the necessity for government intervention.  If such public power is not at the heart of democracy, then democracy does not exist.  If citizens wish to buy a product, they will see the flag of the country of origin during that purchase.  Wouldn't that make you think twice?

2. Educate the public about the domestic economic impacts of such a policy

This is a very important part of the policy.  It is my opinion the citizens deserve and should demand an explanation about the logical consequences of any policy endorsed or created by the government through transparent public disclosure.  Here is the economic axioms on which this idea is founded:

• Any capitalistic economy is driven by the spending of the citizens of that nation on the products and services provided by the businesses based in that home country

• A very large part of the revenue of a majority of companies comes from the pockets of consumers in the middle class and below (where the largest part of the population financially reside)

• Persons employed in higher paid positions have a higher probability of saving money than those in lower income positions (a consequence of a larger disposable income)

The respective consequences of these axioms are: 1.  Economies benefit more greatly from domestically based companies; 2.  Many companies must implement strategies to attract the business of the middle and lower classes to maximize revenue potential; and 3.  It is important for the economic success of a country for the lower levels of companies to be based in that country.

It is the third consequence that is the most important.  Please pause to read the last bulletted point once more.  Ultimately, this entails that a larger proportion of lower income money gets re-injected into the economy to drive the creation of new industry.

Thus, manufacturing performed overseas gives money to the working classes of those nations, which in turn, gives the largest economic benefit to foreign counterparts while the upper management in the home based country tend to save and use additional profit to generate capital gains (which contributes to the expansion of growing, successful businesses).

However, capital investments do little to drive the creation of new industries. To be more exact, capital investments are the result of the creation of new industries.  Consumer spending drives the creation of new industry (in the absence of very prophetic venture capitalists)!

Because of this, we must increase the number of goods manufactured in America.  We must find a way to allow those jobs to be created.  This policy provides that.

Create public awareness through advertisements informing the public that the impact of buying products made in the U.S.A. will be most greatly felt by the unavoidable creation of jobs in the manufacturing sector here in the states.  Those patriotic Americans that can afford it, should buy products with the American flag on the UPC.  On the other hand, they can look at the flag of some other nation they wish to support when they shop.  

In conclusion, for the sake of economic recovery, the logical approach is to encourage job creation here in the U.S.A. by placing the national flag of the country of origin on all products sold here in the states.  This puts the power of both financial sanction and support in the hands of the American citizens, thereby reducing the need of the federal government to get involved.

For a moment, close your eyes and imagine yourself in your local store where you shop.  Picture yourself picking up a product and immediately seeing the Chinese flag on the label.  On the shelf beside that item, for a few cents more, is another product which proudly displays the American flag.  Which would you buy?

In the 1980's would you have bought a product with the Soviet flag on the front of the package?

It's time to create jobs in America!  Please share this with your friends.  And please, give me the pleasure of your constructive comments.  I will be happy to consider your views! Follow @DerrelWalters

Dealing with Controversial Issues

Controversial topics are often considered taboo and avoided completely in conversation.  These topics include religion, political affiliation, cliquish self-segregation (racial or otherwise), abortion, gay rights, corporal punishment, and the multitude of other touchy issues.  The most apparent reasons for this lack of discussion are that people seek to avoid conflict and are often unwilling to allow their own beliefs to come into question.  Are these valid excuses?  No!  Not only are these excuses cowardice, they perpetuate ignorance and slow the overall progress of society.  Only open-minded discussion provides a road to solve these problems.  Here, a logical approach to dealing with controversial issues will be explored  such that all parties involved may save face and still have their voices heard.  Such discussion is the blood of democracy.

1.  Develop a well informed opinion.

The first and the most important step to successfully discussing a controversial topic is to develop a well informed opinion.  The primary reason for conflict when conversations turn to these issues is that one or more of those involved run out of meaningful insights to contribute and become frustrated.  We have all found ourselves in these situations where a calm discussion turns into a "peeing contest."  This is the breakdown in communication that must be avoided.  If a topic arises that a person has not considered previously, that individual should be open and admit so.  For instance, one could say, "I really haven't thought about that enough to form an opinion.  But, I would be interested in hearing your views and giving them consideration."  A statement like this will save a person from trying to formulate an opinion on-the-fly, which often ends in ill-informed, hasty conclusions and frustration.  "Haste makes waste."  In addition, such a comment allows the person to remain in the conversation and explore the other person's thoughts on the subject.  If the topic is intriguing, one can always give it thought and do research during his or her personal time and then pursue the discussion at another time.  Avoid frustration by developing a well informed opinion.

2.  Be open-minded.

It is very important to have an open-mind when considering controversial issues.  Very few of us would ever admit to being narrow-minded and would become very defensive if accused of being so.  However, if a person  finds themselves condemning the opinions of others without feeling the need to hear them out, that person is being narrow-minded.  A person must self-diagnose his or her own narrow-mindedness through reflection.  For instance, regardless of your stance on abortion, what are the main arguments of the opposition?  Do you know?  If you do not, it is likely that you have never considered the entire picture.  This is the very definition of being narrow-minded.  It is still absolutely fine to feel strongly one way or the other about a topic.  Even if a person feels that it would be impossible for any evidence or information to change his or her perspective, it is still important to hear and consider the opinion(s) of the opposition, because only then may it become possible to begin a search for common ground and possibly discover a resolution.  Also, there is always the outside chance, no matter how remote, that a person could change stances.  Sincerely consider the points of the opposition before making final conclusions about an issue.

3.  Ask questions. 

When participating in a discussion concerning a controversial topic, it is important to be inquisitive.  Figure out why people feel the way they do by asking questions about the other person's key points.  However, it is crucial to be considerate when probing.  For example, one may ask, "I find it interesting you feel that way.  How did you come to that conclusion?"  Questions like this will promote the other person(s) to be more open and give them the impression that you are interested in hearing their side, which you should sincerely be.  This will allow those involved to find the roots of individual differences.  In addition, it often gives all parties an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the issue.  Be an active listener and ask considerate questions about other people's views.

4.  Be willing to question the validity of your own opinions.

 Upon a thorough conversation of an issue, one should determine whether his or her perspective is still completely valid given any new information or angles of consideration.  This can be a very hard thing to do, as many controversial issues invoke opinions formulated from deep seeded lessens learned early in life which are bolstered by years of continual belief.   In this case, one should understand that there is a reason why these issues are considered to be controversial, namely that there are large numbers of people on either side of the argument (and varying degrees in-between).  Further, it is reasonable to believe that when such large numbers are present on either side, both sides likely are neither completely wrong nor completely right.  Thus, it is logical to conclude that no matter to what opinion to which one subscribes, there is always some probability that some portion of that view is flawed.  It would be arrogant to conclude otherwise.  A wise person realizes that there will always be more to learn and that acquiring all-encompassing knowledge is a pipe dream.  Be humble; consider the possibility that you may not be completely right.

5.  Do not condemn others or their opinions.

If you are (or become) a person willing to talk about these types of issues, it is inevitable that you will encounter stubborn, uninformed individuals.  To be quite honest, quickly ending the conversation is sometimes a viable option.  On the other hand, if you are compelled to continue the discussion, it is important to handle the situation properly.  Effectively in this scenario, you have become an educator.  Do not handle it as if it is an attempted indoctrination.  The person does not necessarily have to agree with you in the end.  One's purpose here is to effectively communicate his or her ideas and the reasons for those beliefs without alienating any other individuals.  For instance, one may preface an opinion by, "It's not out of the question that I may be wrong, but I believe... because..."  In this instance, it is very important to provide logical reasons why you feel the way you do.  It allows other people the opportunity to experience your thought processes and make reasonable, independent conclusions about your view.  Once again, it is important to accept that all one can do is try and accurately express his or her opinions in an understandable fashion.  It is not a failure when the other party leaves unconvinced.  Those people are entitled to feel as they wish.  However, I will make a 100% guarantee that no minds will be swayed if others (or their opinions) are ever belittled, marginalized, or condemned at any time during the discussion.

In conclusion, reasonable criteria have been given to conduct discussions of difficult issues.  In the past, it has been social policy to avoid such conversations.  However, it is apparent  that such a policy slows the progress of society through the inevitable procrastination of resolving problems that arise from controversial issues.  This problem is widespread, infecting a broad range of relationships from individual to governmental.  It is time to become a population that deals with problems rather than putting them off.  Let us begin now.  Let us employ these suggestions and begin resolving our differences.  The future of free men and women depend on it.  Follow @DerrelWalters