Is Greed Good?

Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, summarized all people into two broad categories: the oppressed and the oppressor. For this reason, he offered his communist ideology to the world to end profit maximization and the exploitation of the poor. Since this time, those who hold to his philosophy, whether by name or ideology, have ignorantly classified capitalism as an economic policy of greed and exploitation. Capitalism, they presume, must encourage the "oppressed vs. oppressor" and "slave vs. slave master" world, because it is in capitalism that greedy men who only want profits abuse the honest individuals. In the 1980's, many capitalists began taking this as a compliment. Capitalism is about greed, they confessed, but this greed is a good thing. Without greed, they suggested, economies cannot grow and flourish.

Although certain elements of the "greed is good" philosophy are true and do help a society prosper economically, greed is not really what capitalism is all about. Sure, the "greedy" man, who desires to maximize profit, will hire the most labor, make the riskiest yet smartest investments, acquire the most capital, etc. And, from the positive side of this "greed," without this entrepreneur doing these things, he would not have the revenue to hire his workers (even if they are of cheap labor) or give the good workers raises. Nonetheless, it is the greedy men who ultimately fail in a capitalist economy.

In order to have real economic growth, investments must be made. This, of course, means investments of all kinds - not simply the rigid definition of investing in the stock market, gold, etc., although these investments are included. College students invest their time and money into college with the hopes of earning a good job after completing their higher education. Entrepreneurs invest in land, labor, and capital with the hopes that it will provide them with more revenue than costs, thus leading to profit maximization. Ideally, citizens invest a small portion (again, ideally) of their income to the government so that their rights will be better protected than if they were left to fend for themselves in anarchy. Everyday, investments of all varieties are made. There are two types of investments: efficient investments and inefficient investments.

The wise and diligent man makes efficient investments. He studies the economy, knows his abilities and inabilities, plants his seed, and follows through. The inefficient investor does not. He may make investments which are unwise, or, he may fail to make investments that he should make. Either scenario is fueled by his greed. On the one hand, he assumes that any investment he makes will be profitable simply because his name is on it. On the other hand, he is too lazy to make investments. His greed suffocates him and he then believes he can beat the economy without playing by the rules. The greedy man may be one who wants so much profit that he continually invests and is given nothing to show for it. He may avoid what he sees as hard-work in being employed by another already-existing entrepreneur and ignorantly open a business doomed to fail. Another greedy man may choose not to invest in labor and provide jobs. His greed, which tells him he can do all the tasks on his own, will soon fail him. The diligent men and women who make efficient investments provide jobs, invest in research and development, and, at the end of the day, only stay in business because they provide a good or service the world needs. These successes come from the diligent people - not those fueled only by greed.

A common mistake a lot of students of economics make is to see wealth as simply a piece of pie. Wealth and the world's recourses are limited and scarce - this is a fundamental truth to economics - but it is not as if one man's success comes at the expense of someone else. All this means is that the successful man has more efficiently dealt with the scarce recourses the world has, which in turn, raises the standard of living for everybody. The only reason the successful man is successful is because he gives a good or service at an affordable price to plenty of people. In his success, he may also give to the poor and needy through a charity or church, higher more workers to work for him, and place his money back into the market by his desire for goods and services. Therefore, capitalism can be as communal of an economic system as it is an individualist one, and it is energized not by greed, but by knowing the needs and desires of fellow men and women.

What do you think?

God bless America

August 2, 2010

Ryan Hampton

Funny Videos That Sound Familiar

The Money Hole:



Gun Free Zone:



Global Warming:



:The ACLU

Tough Economy May Be Good For The Church

Many people are worrying frantic over this tough economy in our nation today. Jobs are becoming less and less available, the value of the dollar is dropping worldwide, while we hold every penny in our pockets with precious value. The recent inauguration of Barack Obama has lead many to believe the economy is back on the rise, while leaving many others including myself worried that this is only the beginning.

But perhaps what we need is a tough economy. While we have been so blessed for so long (and while even this economic downturn is not yet disastrous), it is good to be reminded of our fortune. The love of money is the root of all evil, and America has lived through several generations that have adored money.

Having riches is a good thing, so long as they are earned and used wisely. But not everyone in America earns their money in the way they should. Some are given riches by the government, some by theft, and some from their rich old man. Moreover, not everyone is rightfully thankful and content for what they have; some beg the government, the banks, or their parents for more. Meanwhile, these people learn nothing about the value of work, honesty, and a free market.

With this said, I welcome any economic downturn with optimism, an optimism that when we wake up and grow up, we will turn it back around. Perhaps we need a few tough years – or decades – to wake consumers and spoiled kids up and let them realize what they have. Then we can put higher value in things like family, friendship, education, love, hobbies, God-given talents, church, etc., instead of material wealth. In short, we can be content with what we have, but not in what we have given. We cannot serve two masters. We can serve only God or money. And if the money is not readily available to us, it may leave us with just one choice. And if that is the case, then I welcome any economic woes with full heart.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

January 27, 2009

Ryan Hampton

The Politics of Racism

The Politics of Racism

This will probably a long in-depth blog and might bore you. But I do believe that if you have patience and try to follow this, then it should (hopefully!) be thought provoking, interesting, and possibly even worth your time.

Clifton Gardner did a similar piece on this (1) in which takes up much less of your time to read. I will try to expound upon Clifton's points, and go into deeper detail.

His point was that liberalism is actually filled with much more racism than conservatism, and that, conservatism at its truest is actually not racist at all, despite what the liberals and the media tell you about how conservatives are passionless, authoritarian, rich, white, idiots from the South.

But I will go into deeper points, discussing what worldview and religion have to do with this, and I will be fair. I will give criticism to conservatives when they need it, and I will not bash every liberal in this world as a racist. I will only blame the liberals worthy of being held a racist as a racist, and the rest; I will simply try to inform politely.

But let me explain my politics, which I consider to be more or less conservative, although I may not fit in exactly with every so-called conservative today. It begins with my Christian worldview.

I believe that God created this world and all that is in it. That includes me; that includes you. I can only trust Him for my life, and give thanks ultimately to Him for the blessings upon this life of liberty and property He has given to me. I believe that I, like all other people (except Jesus), am a sinner who deserves Hell, and can only be saved by the blood of Christ. In the New Covenant, this salvation is open to those of all races, both to men and women, from all cultures, ways of life, etc., and can be received simply through faith in Christ. The theology of predestination might could be argued (that is, God predestines His people from before all worlds, so salvation is in God's Hand), but even yet, since we would not know who the elect were, we must assume as if this salvation is offered to all, and must preach the Gospel to everyone as if they can receive it. Obviously, this is not racist.

Now to some, this Christian worldview supposedly leads to the conservative politics of forcing Christianity, hating those who may not believe exactly as they do, etc. But that is not where it leads me or many other Bible-believing conservatives. Here is where it leads me:

God created everyone, and He created him or her equally.
God created everyone good, but each man has responsibility for his sinful nature, and must call upon God to have it forgiven.
God gave us certain Rights under His Law. The core Rights He gave us are the Rights to life, liberty, and property.
The way each individual exercises these Rights is between him and God. He must make his decisions and take responsibility for his actions before God.

But we have a little problem: men being sinners, will want to naturally use force against others to achieve their ends, something they do not have the Right to do under God's Law. Taking the life of someone is murder. Taking their liberty is slavery. And finally, taking their property is theft. All of these things (murder, slavery, and theft) can be used to achieve one's ends at the expense of others. But God works in very subtle ways, and is not going to strike someone down the moment they kill someone. Before the Flood, God pretty much let it go. But when it got out of hand, God sent a flood to destroy the evil of the world. Afterwards, He promised not to destroy the world again like that, so He gave man the authority to set up government for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).

Therefore governments purpose is to secure everyone, of all races, their Rights to life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of their own happiness.

But we have a catch 22. Government is comprised of sinful men. Sinful men usurp one's Rights. Therefore there must be limits on government. In America, we have a Constitution that limits the Central government to their authorities. We have checks and balances. Also, as written in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow bad government (certainly as the Declaration says it is wise to suffer under sufferable, for no government is perfect, but there are times to overthrow a bad government). Not all governments do or should limit themselves in the exact way, but a limited government is important so that the government protects our Rights, and does not usurp them.

To sum all of this up, let's look at the Declaration of Independence itself:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now within this Christian worldview that establishes this basic form of government, there are some questions that still linger and are harder to answer. What about war? Immigration? What about social issues, as today we have the homosexual marriage debates, debates over drug laws, abortion, etc.?

With war, we are killing people, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that destroy life and property, and we are sometimes withholding the liberty of our soldiers. Yet at the same time, it is the duty of the government to protect us at home, and sometimes war becomes the only rational way. Therefore, "war as a last resort" is generally the battle cry for foreign policy. Putting that in perspective in today's world is very hard to do.

Immigration is hard because we should want to offer liberty (although ultimately liberty comes only from God – 2 Corinthians 3: 17) to everyone. We certainly do not want to take it away from those who seek it – even foreigners. But at the same time we must be willing to guard our borders from any enemy we may have. If we have no border, we essentially have no nation or government, and that goes against the Christian worldview.

Social issues are hard as well. Homosexual marriage does not directly take away my life, liberty, or property, but it by no means is apart of the conservative Christian morals that come from the Christian faith, and this relativism can sometimes be enough to destroy a nation. (Abortion would be different, because it involves taking life, which should definitely be protected by government and law.)

And all of the civil rights battles, the civil war, and all of the other political turmoil that has gone on, particularly in the conservative South, does lead some in their right minds to assume that the South or that conservatives our racist. I had one person from Connecticut say that her Aunt, or someone or another told her that a lot of people in the South are racists. And although I find it a bit of a smudge on the South, and very untrue, to someone who does not understand the complicated issues and has had a one-sided education on the "Civil War," it may seem like a fair statement.

And while certainly I am no liberal on the issues I listed above (war, immigration, homosexual marriage), I do think it is possible that some conservatives are a bit too hard-nosed the other way. I would not consider it racist that they support the war, want real tough immigration laws, and are morally and legally against homosexual marriage, but perhaps some conservatives do border a small amount of bigotry, or if not, perhaps it can easily be seen that way to someone who grew up hearing liberal propaganda.

So I have been fair. I have, to the degree that I can without falling over dead, put myself in the shoes of a liberal, and seen how some conservatives may could border or appear to border being bullies, or being bigots of some sort. But now it is time to look at the liberal point of view, and show its racism. And I will begin with none other than an atheistic worldview.

How do liberalism and atheism go together? Liberals are all for giving, right? And isn't that what Christianity is largely about? Helping the poor, providing equality for everyone, etc.? And how would racism fit into this?

I am not going to say that all liberals are racist, or that all liberals are atheists, or even all atheists are racist, or any other combination of the three there is. But the platform of modern liberalism is very atheistic, and very racist in its essence. How so?

Well imagine that there is no God (atheism). We are all here by the chance of predestined molecules that arranged in the way they did to form us. There is no real standard of good and evil, we must make it for ourselves. Furthermore, Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" becomes supreme, where if one group of species can survive over another by force, then so be it. And if that worked for different kinds of fish, then it could work (though no one would admit it), for humans today, where one race can claim superiority over another. Consider what Darwin had to say: "Whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." (2).

And with no God, we have no destiny, nothing to live for other than today, etc. We live for ourselves; for today; that's it.

So what is the purpose of government, if it is not to punish wrongdoers as Paul spoke of in some of his writings? In an atheistic worldview, there is either no government (because there is no real "sin"), or there is an all-powerful government, because it is now the government's job to become god. This sounds like modern liberalism: moral relativism, yet the government controls wages and measures equality, and, to put radically, teaches racial superiority. Abortion is kind of the climax of it, because it teaches both moral relativism, and it teaches that the government can strip an unborn child of its Right to life. It teaches that we can by force take away the unwanted children of the world.

And government programs that liberals ask for fits right in with this atheistic racism. Equal opportunity becomes equal wages, or at least that's what it seems. It's not the government's job to control wages. Our property is between God and us. The government, at the very least, stands as the middleman between God and us in the world of modern liberalism. Think about it: liberals call conservatives racists, when it are the liberals themselves asking to distribute wealth by force from one group of people to another based on race and/or social status. That is the real racism!

Government control of education, as offered by the liberals, is atheistic, and in a sense, racist. It puts all of man into on common basket for the government to control. It strips poorer children the opportunity to receive better education because they are stuck in the bad sides of town with bad school zones. So much for the cultural diversity that liberals are supposedly for. So much for the freedom to choose our religion that liberals are supposedly for. We are stuck being taught what the government wants us to be taught – whether it is politics, religion, etc.

Modern liberalism took hold in the mid nineteenth century, mostly in the North. Interestingly enough, they were called Republicans. Northern intellectuals were the one's who founded government schools. Darwin, someone of the middle of this century, brought evolution to a whole new perspective. Even Abraham Lincoln, America's "hero" and the one who supposedly saved the blacks, was swept into the idea of racial superiority. Consider his words:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (3)

Strong words for the man who "united" America. Of course, Lincoln was also the person who waged the bloodiest war in American history.

This Republican Party stayed strong in the North until the Democrats in the South lost touch with reality and taught the things this new liberalism began to teach. Republicanism began to change into what it is today: a moderate change from oppressive liberalism. The ideas of liberalism then spread to people such as Karl Marx among others who took the ideas into a more radical approach. These liberal extremist ideas were coined with terms such as "communism," "socialism" and "fascism," although even many Republicans today are fascists. It becomes easier to see how atheism and communism fit together, but modern liberalism is really not far from communism or socialism. Consider the song "Imagine" by John Lennon:


Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

It's easy to see the atheism in this, but Lennon was a communist as well, a strong supporter of Karl Marx. And the idea of the world being one is the same utopian propaganda we hear from modern liberalism. The idea that the government can take away hunger and greed is part of modern liberal propaganda. John Lennon would not be far from modern liberalism.

To be fair, I understand that many liberals are simply misguided by the attractive propaganda taught by modern liberal leaders. It sounds good to think that the government can solve our problems; it sounds nice and fair that we'd all make the same amount of money; and it seems to be only descent not to judge homosexuals, people who put drugs in their body, etc. (And for the record, I have not judged any of these people in this blog or even mentioned government control in the matter anyway, simply that I do disagree with their choices by a real moral standard). And it's easy for me being brought up a white Southerner to be conservative, as I'm sure it is easy for someone of the Northeast to be liberal. For some, liberalism teaches we're all one, so we must all live as one, which would include wages, etc. Even some who borrow from atheism only do so thinking it makes us one and equal, not realizing that atheism teaches more racism than Christianity which is offered to all groups and races of people. I think this is the reason for much tension in liberalism. Liberalism teaches some sort of racial superiority that the government can control; yet it teaches some sort of moral relativism in which you can be whoever you want to be. And atheism is the cornerstone to both of these ideas. So it makes me wonder, inasmuch as liberals justify homosexuality, a woman's "right" to choose, "equal opportunity" for minorities, if liberals really have a hypocritical motivation, being to destroy these things. Perhaps conservatives are the better friends to the homosexual, minorities, and a struggling soon-to-be mother, because they offer a true and real alternative that is much better than a hypocritical liberal answer.

These issues are confusing, and can sometimes be taken both ways, so I understand some liberals are simply mistaken and misguided (as are some conservatives on tough issues as well). But I have done a great deal to show that liberalism is founded much in atheism, which can in the long run be the most racist worldview there is. The politics I believe in, however, based on my Christian worldview, is by no means racist. I look at people as people, not classes or groups; majorities and minorities; whites and blacks; etc. People are people created in the image of God – from conception, I believe – with unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and property, or perhaps more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. You can call this conservative, libertarian, Constitutional, or for all I care, liberal. There was a time when these beliefs were considered liberal or Democratic (but if you called me one of those, please put "classical" before it). But I am unable to stand on the platform of modern liberalism because it goes against who I am, my core beliefs, etc. I am forced to believe in small government, free markets, and a meaningful Constitution, none of which are racist.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless you

Pray for our Troops

August 2, 2008

Ryan Hampton


Works Cited:
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=20692146491&subj=518112463&index=1
(2) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
(3) http://home.att.net/~howingtons/abe.html

More suggested articles:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/justice
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Politics Today

Politics

Well I feel the urge to write something. I really haven’t had much time to write stuff lately (working 45 hours a week does that to you ; )) But I feel the urge to write something while I can, and one of the things I want to write about is the current politics, especially of the elections coming up in Novemeber.

The 2008 Presidential race, as far as the Reps and Dems go, is between McCain and Obama. I admit it wasn’t exactly how I predicted it. I didn’t really think McCain would get the nomination. He didn’t have the “presidentialism” that others had, and he fell way behind when Giuliani got ahead. I was also a bit skeptical of Obama, if he really had what it took to get him through the Democratic nomination. I was not sure he could get past Hillary, and now that he has, he, despite all the turmoil that has come up with him, is perhaps the favorite in the general election.

So this would probably be my time to say that although I’m not a huge McCain fan, he’s good enough to endorse and support – especially over Obama. I’m supposed to say that I think McCain has better war tactics and economic tactics, and seems a little closer in line to my beliefs. This seems like my time to, even though I haven’t supported him in the primaries, to give a defense for what will be my vote for him this November.

But if that day comes, it is not today. Nor am I supporting Obama. I don’t really like either one. I guess McCain is probably the lesser of the two evils, but he’s no angel by any means. I know that since I’m not running for President and since it’s a harder job than it seems and my leaders are given to me by God, people say I shouldn’t complain. All those things are true, but somehow I still feel an urge to complain and feel justified.

Both have flawed economic plans. I was looking on Obama’s website just a few minutes ago. I didn’t want to assume he bad just because everyone else said so. I wanted to see his own words. What does he support? He basically wants a plan for anything that might be a problem – a government plan. Since we have children with disabilities and we’re caring Americans, we need a government program to help them, so says Obama. Since the temperature of the earth may be a little higher than it was a few hundred years ago, we need government intervention to cool it down and “control” our environment, or so Obama tells us. We need more government funds into our education system because it is the backbone to America, according to Obama that is. But I don’t want the government to control or attempt to control children with disabilities, the environment, or education. It’s my job to help those adapt to the disabilities the Lord graciously created them with. It’s my job to be a good steward of what the Lord has given me so that I may play my part in keeping a good environment (not that I or any man can control its weather!). It’s my job to get a good education! And its your job on the issues as well. It is not the government’s job! If Obama and other liberals are so against the government bordering with religion or morality, then why force charity on us by taking our money in the name of the poor and disabled?

McCain isn’t quite as bad as Obama on these issues, but he has his ways. He’s a big believer of the “global crises” and wants government to help it. He talks about his “plans” and when I hear politicians talk about their plans I get scared. Here is my plan: get the government out of the economy. Maybe I sound too libertarian but the philosophy holds true with economic principles. I don’t think Obama or McCain either one really understands much about government altogether – about how we have government to protect our Rights given to us by God, namely which are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the government’s job to create utopia. It is the government’s job to secure the peace and protect our life. McCain and Obama both seem to think that the Constitution gives us our Rights. Our Rights come from God not Constitutions. This is just part of their flawed philosophy. If man gives us Rights, then man perhaps also can take away rights, legislate morality, and promote a utopian society. This sounds like Socialism or Communism! Meanwhile, they utterly ignore what the Constitution really says. To many politicians, it tells us what rights we have and if they are not mentioned, then it must mean we don’t have the rights and the government must stop us from the act. The Constitution was actually written for the opposite purpose: to list out where our Federal government should go, assuming that what is not listed is for them not to go. There may be slightly different interpretations to the Constitution, and some may interpret it very strictly while others interpret it broadly, but nonetheless it is a very important work for our leaders to follow, abide by, and defend to the best of their ability. I'm not sure if McCain or Obama care much about it. And when they take their oath of office, whomever it is, they will swear with their hand on the Word of God to defend it.

I don't think either of these candidates is real wise on foreign policy. They each have different views it seems, so it would make since I'd chose one of their views and side with one candidate on the issue. But both are interventionists. McCain may be a strong supporter of the military, and I admire his service to his nation and his patriotism, but that doesn't necesarilly make him wise in foreign affairs. I think McCain may be a little tougher on our enemies that Obama, but I also think he would drive us into war with almost the entire Middle East, making more enemies. However we do it, we need to start returning to the humble foreign policy our Founders promoted and Bush ran on in 2000. Obama may say he'll give us that some, but I'm not sure. I think in his four or eight years (if he's elected), he would bring us into some war or perhaps make enemies with another nation and set us up for war sometime in the future. Maybe that’s just speculation, but I wouldn’t really doubt any of that.

So since I don't like either candidate and I don't support or endorse either one, what do I do? I am kind of stuck between the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and the Constitutionalist candidate Chuck Baldwin. Barr is one of the better Libertarians in my opnion. He was actually an ex Republican Congressman from Georgia. Chuck Baldwin is a Baptist Minister and a frequent candidate of the Constitutionalist Party. I don't know a great amount about either one, but both are pro-life and they have both been big supporters of Republican candidate Ron Paul, who I voted for in Februrary. I think both are good men with good values, who would bring lower taxes, lower spending, promote a sensible foreign policy, and at least to some degree restore the value of the Constitution.

Before leaving, let me briefly defend my decision to possibly vote for a third-party candidate with little hope of winning. Our two parties have become sort of a one party with two branches. They are both, for the most part, wrong on many areas. I look at voting like this: out of those running, you pick who you like the best. If it happens to be a third-party candidate then so be it! Vote your conscience! I know there may always be some strategy in voting. If out of the two mainline candidates, one I liked almost as much as a third-party candidate and needed my vote to win, then I may cast my vote for him. But McCain and I are out of line a bit, and Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin are both similar to my ideal candidates. And McCain is probably going to win Alabama anyway, so I might as well use my vote to promote a third-party candidate – especially if I like them anyway. I know that the third-party candidates may seem too “radical,” but maybe that’s what we need. We keep justifying our votes for the “lesser” of the two evil candidates. Maybe it’s time we vote for someone worth voting for or just not vote at all! Until we do that, we can expect to see our nation go downhill as both parties get worse. I won't tell you who to vote for, but I would encourage you to at least look into some third-party candidates. Just at thought.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

June 16, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Do American's Exploit Foreigners Through Labor?

The following is a paper I wrote for economics class this year.



Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton

Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”

Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.

The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.

It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.

People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.

Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.

Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.

The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.

Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.

Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.

So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.

Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.

In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.

Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.

However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

April 18, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Origin of Economics

The following is an excerpt from a greater piece I am working on. This deals with looking at economics philisophically, and with a Christian worldview. May you enjoy.

The Origin of Economics

We have talked greatly about what economics is in relativity to the world today, but we have not really failed to grasp where the origin of economics comes from. To follow the logical coherence, we force ourselves to ask where the origin of life as we know it comes from, or the origin of the basic principles of human action, inaction, and relationships comes from, given that this is essentially what economics is the study of.

I remember once my younger sister asking the question to my Father, "Why do we have money?" She argued, "Why can't we have stores where people just go get what they want?" My Father answered her asking back, "How much is too much for the people? What if I get something I do not earn?" She answered back, "I guess that the they can make you get only a certain amount." When my Father asked her who "they" would be, my sister said, "I guess the government."

Although the economics my sister brought forth and proposed to my Father were full of fallacies, and was essentially communism, I do not wish for this little section to merely criticize her. She was young, and at least she was thinking about economics. Furthermore, her basic question really spawns us into the entire origin of economics altogether. The basic principles my Father argued against her answered her question, and the question of the origin of modern-day economics altogether (economics as the course of human nature, not the modern economic thought).

A (The Fall of Man)

The origin of modern-day economics, at least according to a Christian perspective, comes in the Garden of Eden. This is where the origin of human relations and actions and inaction as we know it began. But it did not begin at creation. After creation, there was another level that came to humanity, that changed our economic laws altogether. This was the Fall of man. The Fall in a way was almost an altering of the Natural Law that existed. Due to the Fall of man, our principles on government, justice, and economics have changed.

It is interesting that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order to become "like God." They ate the fruit to increase dominion and liberty. Even though there was an abundance of fruit, animals, and many other blessings of the world as they knew it, they wanted to increase their liberty the little more that they could. As a result, they fell into a world of pain and sorrow. The world essentially went from ever living to ever dying. Only by super human action to remodel creation could the world return to the stages of that it was in before the Fall. Even though man was in the world to remodel creation before the Fall as well, there was now much more work needed to be done. The world, in a way, needed resurrecting.

Because the world was ever dying, we entered a world of scarcity. That which Adam and Eve had was now scarce. Furthermore, it would be by the "sweat of [their] brow" that they would enjoy the fruits of the trees and all the other blessings. Now they must not only work, but they must work at the expense of giving up that which they want so that the world would be a better place, and they would be better people.

B (Our Economic Purpose)

All of this is consistent with the New Testament teachings of Paul and Jesus. Our liberty comes from our bondage to God. I have quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 much before, stating, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Furthermore, the act of giving up something for something greater in return in also Scriptural. Christians are supposed to give their all for the sake of God's Kingdom, to enjoy in His righteousness and glory.

By this same token, the only way to decrease the scarcity of that which is on earth is to give up a portion of that which we have, in order to get it all back and more. Without sin, our economics would be different. The sinless descendents of Adam and Eve would not take the property of others. It would be immoral, and man would not be immoral creatures. But also, there would be abundance in the world, so why should we steal property in the first place? We would claim what we have, and give up much less for our rewards. Having real "money," though perhaps not being non-existent, would have less reasons for its existence.

In the grand scheme of things, we are equal partakers of the world with certain unalienable Rights (Natural Rights). This is something that did carry through over the Fall. Among these Rights is the Right to property. My sister was actually (even in her very flawed economics) getting to a good point. We are equal partakers of this world. Therefore, that which we earned, we went and got ourselves. But we did not go get it from a store. We got it from the world and claimed it.

But if it is claimed by someone else already, it is not ours. Not unless we trade. This is why we have money. We work hard for something, only to give it up to another person. But we do this to have something even better for us. We do this privately, helping ourselves, with only us as the attention. But in the grand scheme of things, we each help society in this. Ultimately, Christian economics is really the study of reclaiming what we had before the Fall of man. It is restoring the Christian way. Through this, we give up what we want, in order to have something even better. This is both personal and public.

C (The Purpose of Government)

Along with the Fall of man, we required a necessity for government. Now, government exists to protect our natural Rights, including the Right to property. This is why we punish those guilty of theft. The government, at some level, has the Right to stop of us from totally destroying the planet and defeating the purpose of restoring that which we had before the Fall. Government is force, and even my sister realized this in saying that the government would tell us when too much stuff from the store was "too much" (even though this is an unnecessary use of force, so that part of her logic is flawed). But far too often today, the government in the politically correct name of "environmentalism" defeats the purpose. They fail to understand that in order to have that which we want, we must give up that we have - even if it is scarce. Cutting down trees gives us a use for our natural recourses. Through this use, we may perhaps find something that accomplishes the same goals as cutting down trees, but does it more efficiently and economically. This enables us to restore ourselves to that day in which our economics is full of abundance and pleasure.

Fortunately, we see some of the blessings of good economic policy today (even with a big government). This is called technology. We are constantly coming up with new ways and better ways to do things, making the world less and less scarce. These things are essentially a great aspect of the American Dream, and are done mostly without government.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

January 13, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in American History, Part II: America's UnCivil War

One of the most misunderstood events in American history is the American "Civil War." In fact, the "Civil War" was no civil war. The classic textbook story of the case goes something like this: The South had slaves, and the North wanted to end slavery. The South rebelled and waged war with the North. But they did not really secede because secession is illegal. Abraham Lincoln saved the Union without unnecessary violence. But that is VERY far from the way the story actually goes.

We should ask ourselves what caused the war, how the war went and how it was carried through, and what the effects of the war were, or are. There is little doubt that slavery was an issue, and in fairness, it must be addressed to a degree. But let us remember that the victorious North wrote the historical accounts, making our "history" very bias.

The war was largely a cultural war. It was not a war fought only over slavery, but a war fought between two different cultures. The cultures were different in terms of religion, politics, economics, custom, philosophy, etc. Essentially, they were different in almost every way imaginable. The North and South are different today, but not nearly as much as they were then.

Slavery was an issue that had been going on for a long time. The slave trade in Africa had been going on for perhaps thousands of years. It made eventually made its way to England, and eventually to Western Civilization. It was an issue that the founders pondered on. We would think that because our founders thought so highly of natural law theory, and liberty, that they would have outlawed such an act in the nation. But we must remember that is was considered the norm at the time, and many early Americans wanted to take slaves and treat them right, perhaps even showing them the Christian Gospel.

American slavery acutally began in the North. But as the two cultures grew more and more different, slavery became more indigenous in the South. The South was largely agriculturous, and needed slaves much more than the largely industrious North. Slavery was an issue that separated the North and the South.

But it was not the only issue. New Orleans was shaping out to be a powerful American city. I was close to the Gulf of Mexico and close to the Mississippi River. It was central to both the East and West of the country. But it was a southern city. The North did not like the South becoming more geographically dominant to the once dominant North.

The South was good for producing cotton and the like. A good economic trade system was going on between England and North and South United States. But a disproportionate tariff was placed on imported goods. This hurt the South's economy because they would be forced to buy at a more expensive price, and because it forced others to buy from somewhere other than the South, given that the South would raise their prices to drown out the tax. The South saw this as unkind, unconstitutional, and unfair. They saw it as Central Aggression that benefited the North at the expense of the South.

The South was largely ridiculed due to growing in line with the romantic movement and becoming much more religious oriented. The North was more intellectually oriented as opposed to the South's emotionalism. The South was sensitive to their pride and to any outer aggression or intolerance. The South wanted a smaller government, particular the Central Government. They saw the Central Government as drifting from the Constitution.

The South could not stand Abraham Lincoln. He did not even receive a single vote in the South when he ran for President. Yet he one the election. The South saw him as a tyrant, and a hater of the South. Lincoln probably did not hate the South as much as other Northerners did, or as much as the South thought he did. But Lincoln was not quite the Saint or martyr we make him out to be.

Lincoln once supported secession, but changed his mind when the South seceded. Lincoln was not quite the saviour to the slaves as we think. Lincoln did not want the slaves in America, but he wanted the slaves sent back to Africa. Lincoln was a political flip-flopper (like politicians today perhaps!). When Lincoln was elected President, the South immediately seceded.

Secession is legal. The Constitution never addresses the matter, at least not directly, leading us to believe that the Central Government may not interfere on the issue. But the Central Government did interfere. The Central Government, under Lincoln, waged war on the seceding South.

Therefore, this was a war against two nations - the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. If this was one nation, as Lincoln often suggested, then this war would be unconstitutional, being that the Central Government of the United States waged war on a particular section of its very country! This is not only unconstitutional, but is flat out absurd! And why would or should Lincoln want to wage war on the South if he loved them so much and just wanted them happily ever after in the Union?

But Lincoln waged war on the South. Not only to punish those who own slaves, but to completely demolish the South. The North Burnt churches, houses, and killed innocent people. Slavery was used as an emotional argument to Northern Abolitionists to justify the war. But slavery was not as rampant in the South as we think. Most Southerners did not own slaves, and most of who did owned very little. Very few people in the South owned over ten slaves. And there were still some people in the North who owned slaves anyway.

A point can be made that the South should not have seceded. But it is absurd to think that the South was the "bad guys" in this war, and the North was the heroes. This was no "Civil War." This was a war for Southern Independence fought against Northern Aggression. A Civil War is a war fought between two different parts of one nation seeking the same government. But this was for Southern Independence. The South had - and wanted to keep - their own nation. They drafted a Constitution as did the founders of the United States. It was very similar, simply leading out the "general welfare" clause, and interestingly enough, outlawing the slave trade. After secession, the South should have been left alone, or mildly encouraged to join the Union.

But the North won the war, and in doing so, was able to show dominance and write history. The North began winning many votes by the emotional argument used on the slaves. The North with the help of the Central Government, made the South submit to many of their ways. Reconstruction was not just cleaning up the economy after the war, but reconstructing the South. Much terror against the South still continued. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he knew that the South would have been treated the way they were after the war, he would not have surrendered, but would have fought to the last man.

I do not attempt to claim perfection to the South. They probably should not have seceded, at least not at the time that they did. Slavery, except for rare exceptions, is wrong, and contradicts the founders view of natural law and natural rights. There were good people in the North, and good people who fought for the North, and some people in the South with bad intent. But there were many things that the South stood for that were good, and many things that the North stood for and did that were absolutely immoral. In the least, I hope this provides balance to a largely unbalanced issue.

But don't just take my word. Here are some interesting links:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x0nCil3D1ZU

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/vorenberg.html

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.C318

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/civlwar.html?200720

Lessons in Economics, Part II: The Hypocrisy of Minimun Wage

After much talk of it, the minimum wage has recently gone up. This "Fair Minimum Wage Act," as they call it, has increased the minimum wage to $5.85 per hour (p/h), and it will continue to rise to $7.25 p/h through 2009. Most people assume this is a fair way to help the lower and middle class by allowing them to make more money for their job. The previous minimum wage of $5.15 p/h, is pretty low in terms of raising a family.

But one great lesson to be learned in economics is this: What sounds good on the surface is not always the best thing. So before assuming that this minimum wage increase is actually helpful to the poor and the economy as it may so appear, let's take a deeper look at this. As always in studying economics, we should begin by understanding the basic principles of what economics is.

As was mentioned in my last blog, economics is a form of trade. One person trades off something they own (money, time, material, etc), in order for something else, that they see is better for them. When a person goes really fast down the interstate, they are taking the chance at having a wreck or getting a speeding ticket for the sake of saving a few minutes of time. By the same token, when a person sells an automobile, they would rather have the money than the automobile.

But let us now turn this to the work field. If someone works thirty hours a week for $200, they have made an economics choice, as has the person who hired them. The worker wants to do something with those thirty hours of the week besides sitting at home and...well...probably writing blogs like me! The worker figures that he might as well make money in those thirty hours. He sees $200 as worth it for him (averaging about $6.67 p/h). The employee highering this person would rather have this worker for thirty hours a week, than the extra $200 a week. Or on a different scale, this worker for one hour than the $6.67 p/h. Both have made an economics choice.

This person working thirty hours for $200 could very possibly be an eighteen year old working a summer job, who has already had a little past experience working. The full time working man trying to support a family will probably be making more money and working more hours. But the fifteen or sixteen year old, the hard working legal (at least hopefully legal!) immigrant, or perhaps the sweet widowed lady, will perhaps have fewer hours, and most likely less pay for the hour. They may not be as experienced or equipped for the job. They may have less hard of jobs. The employee may not be willing to pay a sixteen year old almost $7 p/h, but may be willing to pay the eighteen year old that much. This is not sinful, this is just economics 101. Either end of the deal can walk out on the deal. Anybody can be fired for any reason without the reason even making sense. Anybody can leave the job just because they are lazy. But more times than not, a good worker at a reasonable pay will not be fired, and a worker will not walk out of a job with good pay and good benefits.

So what does a minimum wage do? It hurts the poor more than it helps them! The sixteen year old high school student, perhaps making $5.00 p/h, will be out of a job when the minimum wage increases to $7.00 p/h. The employer will higher someone of more experience and more qualifications to fulfill that $7.00 p/h. It will be much harder for a poor person, a young person, a widow, or a hard-working immigrant to find a job. People complain about how immigrants take away our jobs because they have low wages. If this was the case, then so would poor people, widowes, young high schoolers, etc - but we want the minimum wage to help these poor people, widowes, and young people, and hurt the immigrants. Something has to give! A free market would allow immigrants, young people, and widows, to be hired at low pay, so that the business can higher more people and/or increase their business to higher standards offering more jobs in the long run (i.e. Wal-Mart). A free market does not include a minimum wage. A minimum wage is a government institution in the market world. It is unconstitutional, and there is a reason why. The market sets the wage better than the government. The government has to guess. The market's competion forces the right medium. The argument for a minimum wage is hypocritical, and self-refuting. However many Americans do not see things this way. Americans look only to the seen effects, namely in minimum wage, a person receiving a higher pay. The unseen effects, however, are worse. In the case of a higher minimum wage, it would be these people losing their jobs six weeks later, and less jobs for sixteen year-olds in the future. The right solution would be to abolish the minimum wage. More jobs will be created, and the market will be fair, simple, balanced, and best of all, free.

What do you think?

God Bless America

God bless our Troops

December 14, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Economics, Part I: Good Currency

I am going to be doing a "Lessons in" series (as perhaps you have started noticing). This lesson is a lesson in economics, relating to the degrading of our dollar due to increasing fiat money, and of a hope of returning to the gold standard. This issue is not dealt with much among politicians or the American people. I hope that this may inform you a bit more about what money is, and perhaps allow you to dig into the issue deeper.

First off, let us ask the questions, "What is economics?" and "What is money?" We will begin with economics. Economics is the practice of trade. An economics choice is one made of giving up something for something seen more valuable. Pretty much anything you do, at some rate or another, is an economics choice. If you help someone for free, you believe that the joy of helping that person outweighs the price it costs to offer the work. If you fly down the interstate real fast, you are willing to take a chance at getting pulled over and receiving a ticket for the benefit of getting to your destination a little quicker (if you do not receive a ticket). By the same token, if you buy an automobile, you are saying that you would rather have the automobile than the cash. The seller of the automobile is saying that they would rather have the cash than the automobile.

This is a pretty simple concept. You give up something for the hopes of getting something better in return. But many Americans just do not get this concept of economics. When studying any issue relating to economics, we should start off with this basic understanding of what economics is.

Now let us ask what money is. Money is the medium of exchange for the trade. The example of flying down the interstate is not directly related to money, unless of course, you do receive the speeding ticket! But what about the automobile? What could you give to the owner of the automobile in order to make the automobile yours? You should give something that the original owner of the automobile would want - more so than the automobile itself. In the very old days, people may trade chickens and cows. If someone had a whole lot of chickens but very little cows, then they may trade with someone who had a lot of cows but not many chickens. The person with many chickens may give five chickens per cow, given that you get more out of a cow, and that you can not cut a cow in fifths! But what if the person with a lot of chickens only wanted to give up one chicken? A trade of chicken for chicken would be useless, and, of course, you can not cut a cow in fifths. So they may trade for something else small like the chicken, or for several things smaller than the chicken. But what if this person's goal was to get a cow? They would eventually have to trade off enough stuff to have enough to trade for the cow. Perhaps this cow-man made a slip of paper saying it could be returned for one chicken, some fraction of a cow, or some other trade. If the chicken person saves up five pieces of paper each worth one-fifth of a cow, then they have saved up enough to buy a cow. What did they save up? In some form or fashion, they saved up money.

This, too, is not a very hard concept. Yet once again, many Americans forget about this basic economic thought. Of course, we do not live in the days of trading chickens and cows with everyone, but we can use the same principle.

Today, nations are established, and nations trade with other nations. There is so much to offer, so many people moving from point A to point B, and not enough trust to take a slip of paper so that you may go back to that same person and claim your claimed possessions. But the same principle can still apply - it is only used as national currency. This is where the government labels something as a form of trade. People are then free to ask however much they want for exchange of this national currency. A good currency is distinguished by certain characteristics: it is valuable in itself, it is scarce, its value will not change dramatically over time, it can not be counterfitted, and it can be divided up into different amounts. Cows can not be divided up. You will not just cut a cow in half. But what would make a good currency based on these basic principle and distinctions?

Precious metals i.e. gold and silver. They are excellent. They are valuable in and of themselves. They are scarce. They can be divided up into different amounts. Precious metals will not change much in value over time. They may some, but not much. Originally, the founders of this country sought to make gold the national currency.

But that didn't last long. When a nation goes into debt, it may be hard to pay the debt off in gold, being that is scarce. Paper money was used. The idea in and of itself, originally, was not bad. It was to issue a slip of paper saying as a promise that it is redeemable for real gold. A given amount of gold, that would not change. Perhaps the paper could be traded until someone turned it in for gold. Perhaps the paper would be issued just to make sure that the gold can be given. America may deal with this nation in a similar way to the way someone tells someone to "Hold that check until Friday to make sure it doesn't bounce."

It would, in theory, be okay to allow this paper into market circulation. The only problem with this is its chance to be counterfitted. But either way, the national currency of today is far from this. If you look at a 1950 $20 bill, it says that you can turn it in for gold (in round-about terms). Not many people would do that, but it does say that you could turn the money in for real gold. $20 bills of today do not say that. A quarter from 1964 is made out of silver. Quarters today are not made from silver. What happened? The currency has been slowly changing.

The American government created more paper bills promising gold, then there was gold available. Not just a little bit more that was sure to come in, but a lot more that would not come in. The gold standard became obsolete. That is how it is today.

What are the effects of this? This fiat money (government issued 'fake' money), is a hidden tax. The newly created money goes first to the politicians and the beureaucrats. Next it goes to the big businessmen. It takes it a long time for it to make its way to the middle class and to the poor people. But it does not take long for the prices to go up. As soon as the money is in circulation, the value of the dollar decreases. The businessmen working for the government raise their prices seeing this inflation. The men working for the big businessmen then raise their prices immediately. This quickly goes down to the small business owner being forced to raise his prices. Finally when the newly created money comes in to the middle class and poor, more money has been created. You pay extra money. You are always just behind the dollar. The government gets to spend their newly created money first. So much for saving up your money! At least in cow and chicken world, you could save up paper promising some amount of real value! The paper money money is easily counterfitted. Nor is not scarce at all. Money might as well grow on trees after all! About the only thing our national currency is good for now is that it can be easily divided into different amounts (e.g. $20 bills, $5 bills, $1 bills, etc.). This currency is also bad in foreign trade, because the nations do not want our money! Our trade with them is hindered. This is also dishonest. When you are in debt, you simply pay it off with a money machine! Of course, dishonesty always catches up with you. This form of currency leads to depression. It is as if you buy everything on a credit card. You get your material, but as soon as the credit card bill comes in - well, your out of luck! This was the case of the Great Depression. The 1920's were great, it seemed. A great economy. New government buildings. It seemed too good to be true - and it was. The Great Depression hit in 1929. The bubble bursted, and the value of teh dollar was too low to be wanted.

So what do I propose? It would be hard to all of a sudden go to using gold for trade. But perhaps we could at least reduce inflation, and make a gold basis for our money. The only Presidential candidate to my knowledge who seems willing to do this is Republican Congressman Ron Paul. I hope this informs you, at least to some degree, of economics and currency. If we continue to buy things on artificial fiat money, then we need all the help from Heaven when the next generation is faced with its bill - a depression.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

December 11, 2007

Ryan Hampton

The Forgotton Purpose of America's Constitution

This is a paper I wrote for a school class (Government and Economics) concerning the purpose of a Constitutional Government in America.

Why a Constitutional Government?

Perhaps the most important, but yet most overlooked document in America today, is the Constitution. Many government officials take an oath on the very Bible to uphold the Constitution, only to break it severely. But it is the Americans that elect these people into office, only to believe lies not permitted by the Constitution. How could both every-day Americans and our leaders be so blind? And what is the purpose of a Constitutional government, anyway?

There are many angles one could take as to why we have a Constitutional form of government. But it is probably best to begin by having a basic understanding of what government is. First, both the idea of government and the idea of limited government are theistic ideas. We have government to secure the self-evident rights we have, most commonly referred to as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are self-evident and logical. However to an atheist, there is no ground to justify morality on pure logic. Therefore, having a government to use force against citizens using force to damage the self-evident rights of others is only consistent in a theistic worldview.

However the very idea of a limited government is also theistic. In an atheistic worldview, the only purpose of government would be for it to become their "God." The government would then become the moral police of the world, and essentially become communistic in the economy. But the people who comprise the government are sinful people, and it would be dangerous to give them too much power. The idea of a limited but yet strong government gives rise to people living their own lives, pursuing their own dreams, having their own religious beliefs- all without taking away these rights of other people. This is made so clear in the Declaration of Independence, in saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, government are instituted amongst men…"

The essential purpose of government is to guard the land in which it governs, and protect the rights of its inhabitants. The government should be strong, and the government should be limited. Essentially, government is force. This is essentially what governments exist for. However there is some variation of different bodies of government relative to the time, the government jurisdiction, and related bodies of government near it. There is not one absolute "method," to anything that government is, should do, or should not do. Therefore, it becomes essential to look at the United States today and in the day it was founded, as to why it holds a written Constitution.

The government of the United States is complex and sophisticated. The government was founded by the common causes of the colonies who were dissolving their allegiances to the British government. Originally, all colonies were very skeptical of having any sort of general government around them. However each colony wanted to be stronger in itself. For this reason, the colonies compromised some of its powers to a central government. The founders wanted to make this government a government that would make the colonies stronger, but also keep as much power in the colonies as possible. Before drafting the Constitution, the founders originally drafted the Articles of Confederation.

The founders created a sort of mixed government. It is hard to use just one word or phrase to describe the government in America. Contrary to popular belief, America is not a Democracy, although there are some democratic principles that make up what American government is. But if there is one phrase to describe American government after the drafting of the Constitution, it would be as a constitutional federated republic. To study why the term "Constitutional" is used, we should first study the term republic, moving our way to "Constitutional."

A Republic is a government whose general power rests in the hands of the people, but whose people elect officials and representatives in order to enforce laws and secure the peace. This is basic American government. But American government is still unique. As noted above, America is a mixed government. But not just that, America is a federal system of government. What does this mean?

The American government is composed of a Federal, or perhaps better put, "Central" Government. But within this central government, there are several states with their governments exercised through a similar method of mixed government. There was a federal, or "covenantal" relationship between the state governments and the central government. The states give up a portion of their just powers to the central government for national defense, common trade, and the like. However the central government was limited perhaps more than the states. Knowing exactly where to draw the lines for the duty of the central government as opposed to the state governments was hard. What would the founders do now in order to secure this order?

This is where they envisioned a Constitution. A written word and document does better than mere ideas. Not just this, but they were inspired by the Judeo-Christian idea of a written word- as is done with the Bible- as well as the many documents in their colonial history. The American founders believed strongly in holding to a binding agreement- especially if it is written. Now the leaders can take oath not just to mere flexible ideas, but to a written word.

The Constitution was written as a binding agreement on apart of the states in the Union, and the Central Government over the states. At the time, there had been argument as to the superiority, or lack thereof, of government and the people. Furthermore, there was argument as to what level of government- the states or the Central Government- was superior to each other. Some people believed that the Central Government was, or at least should be, the dominant and superior government over the states and the people. Others believed that the states were superior to the people of their respective states, and to the Central Government. Others believed that the people were the overall and superior power and that governments exist only to secure this superiority. The Constitution used all of these ideas to explain what rights each level of government has. The people are sovereign to their own wills as long as they do not offend the sovereign rights of others. Yet the people must submit to governmental authority. But the Constitution went further by designating who has the rights to pass and enforce laws regarding what constitutes as offending the sovereign rights of others. If a law should be passed, who should pass the law? Is it the states or the Central Government?

Once again, the Constitution answered these questions in written form. The founders also formed three branches of government: the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. There was still common law, that is, unwritten law. But this must show sovereignty to statutory law, or written law. The chief and sovereign form of this statutory law is the Constitution.

Moreover, the Constitution gave defined improvement in the nation’s government from the Articles of Confederation. A Confederation often seems to either fall apart in time, or be dominated by the largest state. The Constitution was more than just different bodies of government working for some common cause. The Constitution gave this cause a general government, and in written word would resolve any conflict left by an unstable Confederation. The Constitution did not give this general government a lot more power than it could have vested from the Articles of Confederation, but it did establish real stability that the Articles of Confederation did not. Most of the people who were for the Constitution did fear the government, particularly the Central Government, gaining too much power. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to suppose that the founders did not heavily ponder on the roles of each government and just immaturely and hastily draft a Constitution. The thought and fear that went into the drafters of the Constitution is missing in many politicians in America today.

This was the reasoning that went into the drafting of the Constitution. Essentially, a written document was something the founders had much respect for. It was seen in the Bible, and in many documents drafted by the colonies before the American Revolution. What better way to secure the rights of people than to have a written word that, in much detail, prescribes the roles of government, limiting them to essentially defending the rights of the people? Thomas Jefferson said that the natural tendency in government is for a government to gain power. He was right, as is evident in comparing America today with the America at the time of the founders. But the problem with the political America today is perhaps not that we have a
Constitution, but that our leaders forget about it.

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

October 18, 2007

Ryan Hampton

The Great Fraud

THE GREAT FRAUD


An important and controversial topic in today’s world is the issue of illegal immigration. Many people believe immigrants come in and try to take over of America for its freedom, and all the many great things in this nation. Once, I overheard two people talking, one person half-jokingly say (to more or less of this degree), "If you take away a free economy, free education, and all of the other things that make America great, then the Mexicans won’t want to come here anyway, and it will all be good." He was half-joking, but the main point was that America has many great things that the Mexican immigrants are after- even illegally.

This may be true somewhat, but one thing really caught my ear in what was said. He used the term "free education." Before going into detail, may I give you an economics 101 lesson: "Nothing is free- someone pays for everything somewhere."

The teachers are paid. The people who write the text-books are paid. The people who build the school buildings and all other on-campus facilities are paid. In fact, many people are begging for teachers to get paid more, and more great things in the schools. There is money involved in the public school system, and it is coming from somewhere. Where is it coming from?

Essentially, it is coming from the government. But where does government receive its money? There are three basic ways the government gets money. One is to print off money. One is to borrow money from other countries. And the third way is to tax its people. The first of these ways is basically useless, because inflation will take over and make the "money" useless (as has happened in America). The second way will get you money at first, but then those nations will want it back. The third way is the way the government obtains useful money without having to pay it back. This way is, of course, taxing the people.

So essentially, you pay for education. You pay for the public schools, and the government, the official treasurer of them, controls the schools. In fact, government (public) schools spend more per pupil than the average private school costs per pupil- and all of this is at the expense of degrading the education system. Furthermore, you still pay for education even if you are widowed, have no children, have two children in school, or eight children in school. It is unfair. Some claim that it is fair because it helps the "common good." But you will privately pay for the services the products of public schools do anyway. The private sector seems to offer better people for the "real world" than public schools do anyway. America, with all of its money, is still just mediocre in education when compared to other countries. The public school students fair worse than the private school students.

I know that some would say the reason private schools do better is because the private schools have more money (this myth already busted above, however), because they can accept and deny their students, and because they have to be better in order to obtain any students. Even the last two are not completely true when backed with statistics, but even yet, however it is, the point is that the private education system is above the public school system. If education is so important (as it is, and as proponents of government schools claim), then we should have the best system for our children. If the private school sector does it better, then shouldn’t this be the standard?

Proponents of government schools tell us that education is "too important to be left to the competitive free market." But isn’t the education of our children too important to be left in the hands of politicians- politicians we may or may not like, and who lie and buy their way into office? The free market provides competition and choice. Competition and choice offer great incentives and opportunities for teachers, parents, and students.

Still, public school proponents tell us it is to help the poor people. But if this was the case, should the government set up a government housing system, where you pay money and the government gives you the house of their choice, not your choosing? This is essentially how it happens in education. You pay money for the government to send you to a school you may or may not like.

This brings up another point. What if the government did "give" you a house as was mentioned above, and that this house was not one of your choosing? This gives a "one size fits all approach." Do we want this in education? I think not. There are many different ways one can learn. We don’t want a post-office style education. We want advances, an freedom. There are many different areas where people are gifted at such as sports, music, business, mathematics, communications, etc. This may sound like college, but we can still use the same general basic principle of choice in elementary, middle, and high schools. People learn in different ways, and do not need a "one size fits all" approach.

Furthermore, all of this is not even to mention the different religions, and political ideologies. If there is a separation of church and state, there should be a separation of school and state. Ultimately, one’s education is going to come in terms with religion, politics, and moral philosophy. Why do you think there is debate over prayer and God’s name used in school, evolution taught in school, sex education in school, etc? Ultimately, these are decisions that should be made by the parents, but can not to some level be avoided in education (especially when education is for over seven hours a day, five days a week, and nine months a year). Questions such as the existence of God, the probability- or lack thereof- of evolution, and all other sorts of political, religious, and philosophical questions can not be avoided entirely- at least not without minimizing education to a politically correct standard, which would make many parents mad. Even neutrality is a special kind of bias.

So what does all of this tell us? It tells us that the government takes your money, forces you to go to school, then funds and teaches children according the government’s standards. Our founders showed no signs of favoring a common and government-sponsored education system. In fact, it was mostly Northern intellectuals in the mid 1800’s that favored this- for the purpose of indoctrinating children with their views and interpretation of history and the world around us. Perhaps "free education" should be renamed "forced indoctrination." This really is a great fraud.
So what should happen? All education should be made private. Taxes should be lowered so that any money being budgeted for education would go back into the hands of the people- where it belongs. Furthermore, all compulsory attendance laws should be taken away. Education is your choice and your duty. Compulsory attendance laws hurt the private sector too because it gives the government a chance to define what school is or is not. Even in the private sector, this is a certain amount of government control.

If this seems so foreign to you, I understand. But I ask that you open-mindedly ask yourself two questions. First, is government education Constitutional? Politicians that we elect swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. Where does the U.S. Constitution give government the right to sponsor much less control education? The second question is whose right is education anyway- the free people, or the government? I think that that question is obvious.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our troops.

September 16, 2007

Ryan Hampton

No Thank You

(this blog is similar and inspired from John Stossel's blog, The Double 'Thank-You' Movement."It is, however, written from the words of author, Ryan Hampton).

Have you ever bought something from somebody, said "Thank you," and then heard they seller say "No, thank you" to you? For one, it is common courtesy, especially for the person selling the item(s) bought, but it also shows happiness on the part of both of you, that you are now happier. You want the item more than the money. The owner wants the money more than the item. The worker wants the job so that they get a portion of the money in return.
But what if some outside force kept you from making the deal? You would not be so happy. What if they made a control on the item, that it may not sell for any more than a certain amount, or for any less than a certain amount? What if they told you that you could only buy a certain amount at one time, or told the seller that they could only make so much profit? Or what if they took money that you had earned and spent it on you the way they wanted to, without your consent?
Needless to say you’d be ticked. For economist, it is needless to say what force I am referring to. The Government. Yes, the Government, even the government of ‘capitalist’ America.
You may not realize that the government does all of this, but they do things very similar. You don’t realize it. Children think it is bad when their parents (with legal and moral authority on the children) give them advice, or tell them which paths to take. However, people are relying on the government too much. Children don’t take everything their parents tell them as true. But it is probably a lot more true than what the government teaches us. Children don’t think that their parents advice for saving money is good. However it is better than the government force in our pocketbooks.
How does the government influence our personal economics? A few examples are minimum wage, public education, and price caps. Minimum wage takes away from a free market because the government uses force on the economy, making it not free, but forced. Although it seems as if minimum wage helps the little guy, a closer look shows it hurts the little guy (I do not have time for all the reasons why on this blog, but you can look at other blogs I will have listed below).
Public education is another way the government influences our economy, as well as our personal lives. The idea that America has a free educational system is farther from the truth than what the earth is from the sun. The government takes your money through taxes, and then uses a portion of that (a very large amount) on education. In fact, this amount is larger per child than what the average private school costs. The government takes your money and spends it on something that they see fit for you. Sure, education is important, but do you want it to come from the government? (Again, I don’t have the time to post all on this topic on this blog, but look at the other blogs listed below).
Price caps are dangerous as well. It keeps people from taking risks on business, knowing that there is a forced limit to their pricing. The less risks people take on business, the less business we have, and thus the less competition to keep prices low in the first place. Also, these business will probably not have all the effects that the business make who do take large risks for business. Price caps drive away profit, business, and products. If the product is not worth it, then don’t buy it!
These are just a few ways the government influences the economy, and to these reasons and most all of the others, I say "No thank you." I will show thanks for the free market when making a purchase or selling an item, but will not ask for the government’s help (or lack thereof). John Stossel said, "I get scared when I hear politicians say things like(see link at bottom) ‘I am for free trade but also fair trade.’" The truth is, free trade is most always more fair than government forced trade, or lack of trade. We don’t really need the government for as many reasons as we may think, and in reality, the government probably need the people more than the people needs the government. We don’t need the government telling us how much something is worth, or how much is too much. We do that on our own. If we make mistakes that is our own fault. We should not have the government taking money from the economically wise to promote the general good of the economically illiterate and stupid. That just encourages us to be glutton pigs instead of hard working humans. That is basic communism, not a basic free market society. So to the government, no thank you, and to the person at Wal-Mart who sold me the Fathers Day card and birthday card for my cousin, "Thank you; ‘No, thank you!’"

See blogs, "The Double 'Thank-You' Movement" by John Stossel, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_double_thankyou_moment.html

"Competition Works. Let It Help The Schools." by John Stossel, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/competition_works_let_it_help.html

"The Ignorence of a Minimum Wage Argument" by Ryan Hampton, http://ryanhampton.blogspot.com/2007/01/ignorence-of-minimum-wage-argument.html

"My Thoughts on School Vouchers" by Ryan Hampton, http://ryanhampton.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-thoughts-on-school-vouchers.html

"Problems With Education" by Ryan Hampton, http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=153516180

"Taxes and Government" by Ryan Hampton, http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=135528600

"The Hypocrice of Minimum Wage" by Josh Rutledge, http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/07/hypocrisy-of-minimum-wage.html

See Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee's page to see him talk about 'Free but fair' trade ==> http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=5

Are You Buying Gas Tomorrow?

You may be familiar with the "Don’t buy gas May 15th" e-mails, notifications, and so forth. You see it on any sort of advertisements from events or groups on facebook.com, to random e-mails, and plenty of other sources. The plan is simple: for everyone and his brother to boycott gasoline on May 15th, 2007. The idea is that gasoline companies, having no business on one day in particular, would be forced by the laws of economics to lower their prices. Sound good? Well let’s take a look!Statistics are a good way to help us learn about economics. But statistics can be overrated. Statistics back up the facts. Statistics show what did happen, and give a good idea of what will happen. If two big dogs have another big dog, there is a chance that there is a sort of pattern or relationship between two big dogs having a big dog. But statistics are not always accurate either. They do not lie, but those who live by statistics can deceive themselves.
You may be familiar with the quote "A broken clock is right twice a day." Sometimes, "A" may cause "B" but "A" may not always cause "B." So you ask, what does this have to do with whether or not we pump gas on May 15th 2007? Well it does because it shows us that we can not always use statistics. Statistics can attest to the pure absolute laws of the universe, and to common sense. Neither true laws, nor common sense lie. Unfortunately, common sense is not too common.
Therefore, I desire to present my opinion on this case with common sense approach, with common sense more in mind than statistics. It gives us better results. Common sense is universal. Statistics are particular. Statistics can often help defend what common sense tells us. Some statistics, relating to what has happened, are factual. However making statistics direct our future is only relative. Past experiences may or may not happen in the same way. Having said that, I do not know all the statistics. Both sides of this argument (to boycott or not to boycott gasoline on May 15th) seem to tell me that statistics are in their favor. Once again, either side can take statistics from different times in totally different situations, to help make their case show truth. People would rather hear "We tried this before, and (fill in the blank) happened," than they would "Okay class, now we begin Economics 101. According to Adam Smith…"
But economics 101 probably tells more and has more accuracy than what you would hear from the media reporting about what happened twenty years ago. We need pure laws of economics, and pure laws of common sense to tell us what will probably happen. From economics 101, I see two ways of looking at this.
One way would be to say that sense the people control the free market, then what would be wrong with the people at least trying some way to lower the price of gasoline. Keep in mind, that this way of looking at this, theoretically only shows two things: that the government should not interfere with the situation on either end (promoting/forcing the idea, or forcing the idea not to take effect, perhaps by forcing you to buy gasoline on May 15th), and that this is merely for now, only an idea, not a given fact that it would affect the price of gasoline or not. Whether or not it will is still in question.
But the other way of looking at this, takes it one step farther: whether or not the proposed idea would work. When I look at the issue on this standpoint, I do not believe that it would work. Suppose that someone owes somebody twenty-one dollars a week, and can pay it in any form that they wish, so long as on Sunday, the person who owes money has paid twenty-one dollars to the person is owed the money. Suppose that the person who owes money pays three dollars a day (three times seven is twenty-one). Now suppose that the person is angry with loosing three dollars every day, and decides not to pay anything Sunday through Saturday, leaving only the next Sunday to pay twenty-one dollars. The person who is owed the money is going to still charge twenty-one dollars. He would not get discouraged and lower the price.
It is true that someone may lower their prices in order to keep with competition, or to earn business in a less necessary field. For instance, yardwork (what I do), is not as highly demanded as other jobs. Most people do their own yardwork. If no one hires me, I may lower my prices to try to drum up some business.
But gasoline is different than yardwork. Your normal every-day citizens are not going to go into places of the world they’ve never been, dig a trench, dig up oil, and then convert it into gasoline, all just to drive a car. They’ll pay people to do that. Division of labor, and competing oil companies help make this worth it. Obviously, you will not walk everywhere, or convert to horse-and-buggies. If you do not buy gasoline on one day, you will need the gasoline on other days. If you need to fill up your tank either the 14th, 15th, or 16th, then if you don’t do it on the 15th, then you will either the 14th or the 16th. This, perhaps, is the best simple and straight-forward approach to the issue. You will need to buy just as much gas, so long as you burn the same amount of gas (depending on you gas mileage, and miles driven). Both of these will theoretically be the same.
Economics 101 tells us that supply and demand affect the price of materials. The demand for gas is high. If the whole world suddenly ran out of oil and gas, we would be much worse off than we are now. Do you really want to walk across town, or whip horses and ride in a buggy across town? Of course not! As far as the high prices, don’t freak about it. It does not help. For those who do love statistics, consider this: when adjusted for inflation, gasoline is not really as high as it was during much time in the 1970’s, 1980’s, or even part of the 1990’s. These statistics are factual statistics, not relative statistics. To suggest that this means that gas prices will drop due to inflation would be relative, not statistic, because we have not seen the future gas prices, and we do not know what they will be.
If you are worried about the price, what can you do? You could try to decrease the amount of gas you use. However, that would be hard. You may have to give up something you would not like to such as church, scouts, ceramics, or any other optional even you go to. You could try to drive a better fuel-efficient vehicle. You could do this, but you may have to buy a new vehicle. But perhaps the best way to help the cause for lower prices, is to not complain. When you complain, the government is "there to help." But economics 101 with statistics and the past to back it up, show that when the government is "there to help" is often in reality making the situation worse. For that, I would rather a boycott, then a price cap, although neither one would really work.
Yet people still want to give it a try, and I say, let them go for it. If they find happiness in a worthless cause, then so let them. I hope that anyone who thought this would work would see the other side to the situation- the common sense, and basic economics behind it all. People claim that we should be optimistic toward the situation, as if that giving it a try would not hurt. It may not hurt, but the rationality is that it does not help. Supply and demand affect the price, not our optimistic attitude. Perhaps we should be more optimistic that the price will go down due to competition. It may or may not, but this is a better place to be optimistic than a worthless cause is. The only way optimism and pessimism takes effect tomorrow is depending on whether you look at your tank half full or half empty.