Data engineer will soon be at the top emerging jobs lists

LinkedIn recently released their 2017 U.S. Emerging Jobs Report.

Data Engineer (DE) should be near the top of the list but the industry hasn’t standardized on this term. Right now, the people with the skills to do data engineering are spread across 20+ LEGACY job titles. If these 20+ job LEGACY titles were mapped to the emerging title ‘Data Engineering’ then there would be a big spike in the data.


The titles, ‘Data Scientist’ and ‘Machine Learning Engineer’ don’t have this mapping problem. This is great news for all the DB architects, ETL specialists, DBAs, BI developers, RDBMs engineers and everyone else doing ‘data engineering’ today that haven’t updated their titles to ‘Data Engineer’.

Depending on the project, the healthy ratio of ‘Data Engineers’ to ‘Data Scientists’ ranges between (1 DE: 1 DS) to (4 DE : 1 DS). This means for every data scientist, there needs to be 1 or more people doing data engineering. For an average data science project 80% of the work is in data preparation, which is best done by the ‘data engineer’ role.

We have had previous tutorials on the demand function and supply function. Today, well qualified ‘Data Engineers’ are in short supply and the demand for this skill set is only going to increase.

From the executive search industry view point, there is an over arching demand for “data” talent. The lack of clarity in titles makes it challenging for many hr/ recruiting departments to communicate the needs of the managers and businesses they support. They are getting better, but the need and opportunities are definitely abundant!

However, there is one point that needs to be better clarified. The Data Engineer role is also spread into the Machine Learning Engineer and Data Scientist roles, and even more heavily than the legacy titles. These roles are the leads for projects and as there hasn’t been a clearly defined Data Engineer role, much of the Data Scientist and Machine Learning Engineer’s role is to clean and order the data themselves so they can do their most important work with it! 

In the startup world, the teams are smaller and people have to multitask more, but even when working with large organizations, the situation is quite similar! Even with a large team, those running the DS/ML projects have to closely coordinate with others to convey the need for, and reasoning behind, specialized collecting, labeling, and ordering of data. This job may not be split out for a long time, but it’ll eventually move in that direction as the field matures.

Many Data Scientists today are playing dual roles, ‘data scientist’ and ‘data engineer’ out of necessity. It doesn’t mean it’s the optimal solution. The best data scientists are usually the ones that have taken very different paths through life. While either can ‘play’ each other’s job roles, the best data scientist adds the most value when they are doing data science.

Similarly, the best data engineers add the most value when they are doing data engineering. There is always going to be a grey area between the two roles. The data engineering team should be encouraged to spread into data science.

Likewise, data scientists should always be learning more about enterprise class database systems. Cross training is extremely important for project momentum and quality.

However, the most value comes from deep domain expertise and ability to deliver high quality work in their respective roles. As they say: “Jack of all trades, master of none”.


A new model for Pareto Optimality

The folks at AEQUILIBRIA have been working a model to improve business strategy.

When seeking strategy ahead, they apply S3S4ME℠ -strategy/success=systemic solution seek for maximum effectiveness.

How does it work, for example in law?

Simple: compare the public policy interest behind the development of an area of law and the development of another. Run the “attention in agenda setting test.” Better yet, “the Carnot efficiency test” applied to an area of law.

A test? How? We can use family law and child custody and parenting time matters as example. How developed is the area of law when compared to secured transactions (a body of law that is quite developed, and thus ‘approximately complete’–i.e. it is close to efficiency and effectiveness in practical application)? When compared to contracts law? To non-intentional torts? We find that family law, and custodial and parenting time “best interest of the child” law is an area of law in its epistemic and applied-development infancy. Next step: attempt to develop stronger closer to quasi-complete new paradigm in family law.

Next boost innovation: apply 3S4ME℠ itself–systemic solution seek for maximum effectiveness.🚀 We end up with an app and a business idea that, when implemented, ensure path to Pareto optimality of solution via self-enforcing means.

Better yet, what’s beautiful about the solution that tends towards Pareto optimality based on self enforcement is that, like the picture suggests, it is a business solution like water, just as the river at Pont du Gard, and as the Roman aqueduct crossing it with what has been over centuries the civilizing effect of a benevolent hegemon that the Roman Empire and several inheritors in interest (and in cultural and legal traditions) has (have) been in part. Not always and not in the entirety of their conquests, but at least in part all resulting empires have manifested at least a little benevolent hegemony. Hence the natural spreading of their civilizing inventions and the lasting over the years and minimal further systemic evolution of those early genius solutions.

The Romans were great engineers, but they were great at so much more than engineering alone. The spread of civilizing Roman aqueducts is a validation of the constructal law of design in nature and human systems of Adrian Bejan. That’s because the aqueducts continued to spread much after the demise of the Roman Empire, through the continued role undertaken by the subsequent empires. Aqueducts of the same design are present in Mexico, where obviously the Romans themselves never reached.

Private label is starting to defeat bigger brands

2018 is going to see a massive upswing in factory direct eCommerce brands from Asia into the US. Factories are hiring and investing top tier US-based eCommerce talent and agencies and building their own direct-to-consumer (D2C) brands, armed with the knowledge of what is hot and what is selling – essentially the Amazon Private Label equivalent of the non-marketplace D2C. This will likely hurt all US-owned companies who are not vertically integrated as they will not be able to compete on supply chain efficiency and price unless the cost of manufacturing is somehow impacted on one side in a big way which as of now is unlikely! As a country and as an economy, the US needs to refocus on growing its collective brand and start investing in building the world’s most advanced and sophisticated export framework and ecosystem and they need to teach their teams and leaders about competing in a global marketplace.

At this point, not too many Asian brands have enough brand equity to go D2C in the US. There aren’t very many examples outside of electronics and cars. But it is changing because of online reviews and forums.

There’s a smattering of Chinese companies that have been doing an incredible job of D2C. It’s not as hard as most people think, and they have price on their side. When you make millions/year off of Amazon, and you’re hungry, it goes to the next logical step.

In addition, the purchasing power of the average consumer in this part of the world has risen rapidly in recent times, and that has significantly increased the size of the opportunity compared to even as little as 2-3 years ago.

They’re watching the west import, mark up and prosper. It’s only a matter of time and they’ll be making big moves to get in on the game. Once they figure out how to line up their branding and marketing with the western consumer, it’s going to explode.

These companies are now advertising on TV and telling people to search and buy on Amazon. This trend will only accelerate in 2018 and the trade deficit will only continue to grow as we push further to bring in good from Asia.

This is already happening on a large scale on Amazon. In fact, Amazon spent a great deal of resources this past year running symposiums in China to promote this opportunity. They will likely start running their own ocean freight fairly soon.

India needs to prove they can be a quality manufacturer

India is considered to be a future powerhouse, but it is still lacking the ability to prove itself as a quality manufacturer. So why is it that India’s share in global manufacturing exports or as a percentage of GDP so low in global or Asian comparisons?

One argument would be corruption. There is a lack of discipline at every stage, whether applying technology, understanding quality, and applying it without making compromises. If they can understand quality, then quantity will follow. Quality should be way of life. This is the major difference which separates India with other developed countries.

It is a wonderful thought but the problem is deep rooted. Identity emerges from original R&D, and in case of Indian companies, developing such original product solutions is still a challenge. One great product where India has emerged as a Global Leader through domestic innovation is ‘Space Technology’ and the world swears by its name. Till the time more Indian Companies develop ORIGINAL global products, they will have to enjoy the FOREIGN Experience, ‘Made in India.

High levels of social inequality is also a barrier to general excellence in industry including manufacturing. Consider that in both Japan and Germany the pay difference between the CEO and the most junior person is much narrower. Everyone shares a part of the economic benefit and is much more motivated.

One of the main issue with the products which are made in India is the ‘fit and finish’ which highly influences the ‘perceived quality’ Most of them are actually more durable and reliable than they appear to be. India needs revolution to drive this ‘perceived quality’ issues.

Another issue is that unions and their political agendas have a significant impact on India‘s industries ability to transform to world class. If the unions and their members have a different agenda than management and promoters, no text book management operational technique will change that.

Bitcoin Bubble will burst and should be banned according to Nobel Laureate

Is bitcoin a bubble? Another tulip mania?

According to Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Winner for Economics – it is absolutely – you’ve heard that before but here are some of the details:

1. Bitcoin is primarily for illicit activities – Who would use bitcoin ? Primarily for funding or trading illicit activities – eventually if it becomes prominent enough and associated with high profile illicit activities – governments will find reasons to clamp down on it – Governments haven’t clamped down on it but they may do so very soon.

2. It has no intrinsic value – it is artificially created demand as even though the number of bitcoins in circulation are limited – there is no reason why they should stick to bitcoin – there is no real underlying value – and that’s when eventually they will move on to other investments.

3. Finally – the underlying block-chain technology will eventually force some level of transparency by governments which will mean that this currency’s appeal will die out to its core participants.

However, his view may be motivated by vested interest regarding his own back catalog of material supporting a monetary system that increasing numbers are starting to view as an establishment extortion racket! They cultivated their intellectual supporters, polished their egos with nice prizes, etc.

Bitcoin being a crypto”currency” derives its value from: 1. Its value against other currencies and 2. Its value against goods & services it can be exchanged with. But its speculatively driven ballooning price is a big worry because it may not have a proportional relationship with money as specified in the quantity theory of money. Maybe after it burst we may find its true value. This happened when Tech Stocks went crazy not too long ago.

Private labels change retail landscape

Bloomberg posted an article about the retail apocalypse that is being fueled by no-name brands.

Another factor affecting this is the fast-changing fashion trends. This may be a reason that off price chains such as TJMAXX, Burlington, Ross have all seen growth when malls are going away. People aren’t not into brand names, people still love brand names for the quality behind the brands but people are smarter and realizing that full price retail is marked up beyond reason. Stores like TJMAXX or Nordstrom Rack have same brands as the malls, just with a price consumers are more comfortable paying, especially since fashion now a days is not seasonal. It is literally new trends every week, month, etc., and the pressure to have new, trendy clothes is real. People would not mind spending a premium if they knew that the garment would be trendy for an extended period of time, but they are not going to spend $200 on a shirt or something else if they know there will be something new and half the price probably the week after in a off price store.

Whether it’s a $45 shirt or a $10 shirt, they’re both made of cotton and probably both made in Bangladesh by the same subcontracted seamstresses. With the $45 shirt, there is just more profit to pay for the advertising of the name brand and there might be more quality control processes. The more expensive shirt will (hopefully, but not always) be made of a thicker, better quality fabric. It is a combination of name brands cutting costs and greater consumer awareness that the $45 shirt, aside from the label and logo is not always better than the $10 shirt.

Internal Control Methods


1. Risk assessment procedures

2. Tests of internal controls

3. Substantive tests of transactions

4. Substantive analytical procedures

5. Substantive tests of details of balances


Media and function and remittance advice, invoice, customer order, sales order – definitions



Describe a control measure that would reduce likelihood

Or 5 control measures and explain what fraud/error it catches


  • Sale to a fictitious customer
    • New customers must be approved by sales V/P


  • Sale to an unauthorized customer
    • New customers must be approved by sales V/P


  • Customer accidentally sends duplicate order
    • Order acknowledgements are sent to customers


  • Customer accidentally orders wrong line item
    • Order acknowledgements are sent to customers


–          Customer order lost

  • Order acknowledgements are sent to customers


–          Wrong customer number put on sale invoice

  • Customers are given an authorized customer number which must be used when an order is placed


–          Too high of price on sales order

–          Too low of price on sales order

  • Sales clerks verify product  identification numbers, prices, shipping addresses and sales and freight terms quoted by the customer


–          Quantity overstated on order

  • Order acknowledgements are sent to customers


–          Quantity understated on order

  • Order acknowledgements are sent to customers





•Order processing clerks should not have access to inventory or the sales/& accounts receivable accounting records
•New customers must be approved by sales V/P
•Customers are given an authorized customer number which must be used when an order is placed
•Customer P.O. forms are required for all orders placed
•Prenumbered sales order forms are numerically controlled
•Access to sales order forms is restricted
•Sales clerks verify product  identification numbers, prices, shipping addresses and sales and freight terms quoted by the customer
•A copy of the sales order is forwarded to the credit approval function
•Temporary holds are placed on inventory items ordered by the customer
•Credit limits are established for all customers requiring less than $500,000 of credit
•Credit limits established are approved by the treasurer and reviewed on a quarterly basis
•Credit approval clerks report to the treasurer and perform no other duties
•Orders packed are independently verified and approved for shipment by packing inspectors
•Prenumbered shipping documents are numerically controlled
•A log is employed to control the chronological sequence of outgoing shipments
•Orders packed are independently verified and approved for shipment by packing inspectors
•Prenumbered shipping documents are numerically controlled
•A log is employed to control the chronological sequence of outgoing shipments
•Invoicing data are entered by clerks who report to the controller
•Batch totals are employed to control data entry
•Invoices generated by the system are reviewed for overall propriety by media clerks who report to the controller
•Standardized journal entries are used to control sales entries
•The sales entry is posted by the general ledger clerk
•A trial balance of trade accounts receivable is prepared and reconciled to the general ledger on a routine periodic basis

How to Fix Race Relations

The biological  (biology = study of life) classification of life is broken down into the following categories: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Nowhere in that list do you see “race.” The reason for that is that race is not real. Humans are homo sapiens, not homo sapiens black or homo sapiens white – just homo sapiens. If this is the case, why is “race” such a huge deal in American and global society and politics?


If we are all homo sapiens, why does our skin look different? Instead of over-thinking that question, why don’t we just be honest? We have different skin color for the same reason we have different eye color, hair color, heights, different size noses and ears, and all of the other physical differences we have.


DNA is composed of  the nucleotides GATC : Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine.  AG and TC are pairs that can only match up with one another. As a result of all life being composed of these 4 nucleotides that are limited on how they can match up, genetic variation is limited. As a matter of fact, humans and dandelions are close to 90% genetically similar. With that fact being established, how different are us humans different from each other? All members of homo sapiens are 99.8 to 99.9% genetically identical.


If we are so identical though, then why do we look so different? Since humans began leaving the African region somewhere between 20 to 50,000 years ago, a mutation (change in genetic code) provided some members of the species with “white” skin. Having moved from Africa outwards to places that is now called Europe, vitamin D increases were important.


“Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin,” explained Rick Weiss of the Washington Post. “In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin’s ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes.”


This does not mean there is a “race gene” though; it means that there is a genetic variation the same as there is variation in eye color in the human genome that impacts the degree of darkness in skin. Humans have roughly 3.1 billion letters in their genome. One genetic mutation for skin color led to a change one letter out of 3.1 billion letters.


What is 1 divided by 3.1 billion? It is essentially 0. Therefore the variation between white skin, black skin, Asian skin and all other variations is 0%.


It is established that race is not in the biological classification of life and that skin  is 0% genetically different between each color. With that being said, how could race be argued and one be classified as “racist” or not?


Race in the modern day form is  often referred to as a collection of people agreeing to abide by “cultural” restrictions, regulations and ideas. That being said though, most people who “are white” will not be called “black” based upon the following of cultural restrictions, regulations and ideas, and most people who “are black” will not be called “white” based upon the following of cultural restrictions, regulations and ideas.


The attempt to define race as cultural and social has simply fallen apart as it is almost universally distinguished by skin color. One “white” person is Catholic, enjoys country music, romance movies and works as a teacher while another “white” person is atheist, enjoys rap music, sci-fi movies and works as an engineer.  One “black” person is Mormon, enjoys rock music, action movies and is a politician while another “black” person is Muslim, enjoys country music, comedies and is a consultant. Despite having drastically different backgrounds or potential backgrounds, they are almost ultimately classified together.


During election cycles that always break down “demographics” by “white voters”, “black voters”, “Hispanic Voters” and so on. Well obviously these people do not follow the same traditions, culture and daily life activities, but they are ultimately grouped together based on a 0% genetic variation.


The fallacy of thinking this way leads to uninformed voting decisions, hatred, bigotry and a society that is inefficiently allocating resources based on imaginary concepts instead of facts. Race is not defined as a biological classification of life and the genetic difference between the universally accepted distinguishing factor of race is in actuality non-existent. If one were to argue a 1/3.1 billion fact in any other argument they would be called out for wasting time and for being statistically insignificant.




Argument Against Government


Every four years the nation gets together and splits itself down the middle on who should be President and which political party should run Congress. Neighbors put up competing yard signs as the glare at one another, bumper stickers will decorate our expensive cars in an effort to somehow persuade someone to change their vote at the stop light, and we all tune in by the millions to watch heated debates and accuse the other side of lying.


This is politics at its best, and this is government at its best. We will continue to negatively review politicians, decrease their popularity ratings, say that the system is the problem and that it is broken, but we thus far have done absolutely nothing to correct it. Instead, we debate over person 1 and person 2 and pick the “lesser of two evils” saying that there is no other option. Why does it always come down to replacing a politician with someone else, when it should be coming down to replacing one system with another?


The issue is not the politicians; it is the government. Economics 101 will teach you that every decision we as individuals make, is made because we perceive it to be in our best interest. Why are people willing to stand in 5 hour long lines for a new Iphone? It is illogical to say, “I waited 5 hours in line because I hate Apple.” It is illogical to say, “I waited 5 hours in line because Iphones hurt me.” It is illogical to say, “I waited 5 hours in line because I do not care about Iphones.” None of those statements are logical and none of them would ever be correct. An appropriate, logical and correct response would be, “I waited 5 hours in line because the new Iphone will offer me benefits that meets my expectations of a smart phone.” It would also be logical to say, “I waited 5 hours in line because my past experiences with Apple has shown that their products work and are of high quality.” Or simply – “I waited 5 hours in line because the benefits I gained from doing so and thus receiving the Iphone is greater than the costs I incurred of doing so.” This concept can be simply referred to as – “Acting in your own self-interest.”


We do things because we perceive the positive consequences to be greater than the negative consequences. Acting in your self interest does not simply mean, “be greedy.” In doing so we analyze direct costs such as monetary costs; we analyze social costs such as the ramifications and potential backlash of those around you and how they feel about your decision; we analyze opportunity costs such as what we could have done had we made an alternative decision instead, and we analyze personal costs such as the emotional and biological costs incurred from making a decision as well. If these costs are less than the expected benefits we will receive from those same descriptive benefits, then the decision is logical.If making decisions based on direct monetary impacts, emotional impacts, societal impacts and relationship impacts is considered greedy, then the term is illogical anyways.


In short: If Benefits > Costs –> Decision is Acceptable

If Benefits < Costs –> Decision is Not Acceptable


Resources are limited in availability, and therefore the efficient allocation of them is what we seek. We want to gain the most benefits, the most utility, or the most happiness that we can by giving up the least sacrifice, the least struggles and the least stress. This is what drives market transactions.


Every single person on the planet is unique. We have a different genetic background; we come from different countries or even territories within a country; we have different educations; we have different friends and family; we have different weather; we have different initial wealth; we have different emotions and experiences. As a result, we all of course value things differently. One person may be willing to spend 2 hours in line for an I phone, while another may be willing to spend up to 10 hours in line. We do this because we place different value upon the item. The more we value it as, the more we are willing to give up for it. In economic terms, we each have our own unique individual demand functions, and we each have our own unique supply functions.


Let’s go back to the system of our government now. As it has been clearly established, as individuals – we act in our self interest. If we act in our self interest, that means you as a consumer acts in your own self interest, your banker acts in their self interest, the doctor acts in her self -interest, your child acts in their self-interest, the car dealer acts in their self-interest, you as an employee acts in your self-interest, the cashier at the grocery store acts in his self-interest, the teacher acts in his self-interest and the engineer acts in her self-interest. We as a society cannot and usually will not even try to refute this economic fact. You go to work because the salary earned is greater than the costs incurred of doing so. The doctor treats patients because the pay and feeling of doing good outweighs the costs of running the business and getting insured. The teacher teaches because the salary and feeling of building up a generation outweighs the cost and hours of doing so. These people are not working for free or doing so just for the sake of doing so. Like established, they do this because they are acting in their self-interest to maximize their benefits. As Adam Smith correctly  put it, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”


Someone seems to have been excluded from that list above though. We have the worker, the doctor, the engineer, the teacher… Who is missing? Of course – the politician. Politicians are not excluded. The government is not excluded. Winning an election fairly or unfairly, does not make one an exception to established economic mathematical models. The government is composed of individuals. Individuals act in their self-interest. Each individual has their own unique set of experiences and their own unique demand and supply (benefits/costs) preferences. Therefore it is illogical to believe that a government could ever act in the interest of the population.


As I type this up right now, what am I craving the most? What do I want the most out of everything in the world right now? You of course do not know. Only I know. I know my experiences. You do not. I know my biology and body. You do not. I know my disposable income. You do not. I know what I expect to happen in the short and long run. You do not. So if it is impossible for someone other than you to know your own preferences, how can a governing entity ever efficiently or effectively allocate resources or make decisions? They cannot know even my preferences as a single individual, let alone the preferences of the 330 million people in the United States, or the billions of people in the world.


If they cannot know their constituents, how can they rule? But let us consider if they could know our preferences, should they rule then? If I know that I am willing to wait 5 hours in line for an Iphone and spend $500 on the Iphone, why would I need someone else, some politician, to make a law stating, “Alexander is now granted the right to wait 5 hours in line and spend $500 on an Iphone.” That makes no sense at all. If I am able to freely make a decision by weighing the benefits and the costs on my own, why would we need a middle man to report to to tell them I am willing to spend $500 and 5 hours to get an Iphone so now I have permission to spend $500 and 5 hours to get it?


The fact of the matter is, a government is just as the word describes, an entity that governs. To be governed means to be ruled. To be ruled means to have your actions dictated by someone else. As already established only you can know your own preferences, so it is the government’s objective to act in the ruling people’s self interest, not the population’s self-interest. We are acting in a system to allocate resources. Resources of course includes: money, oil, emotions, food, gold, clean air, water, relationships, toys, medicine, labor… So we willingly elect people to act in their self-interest to allocate money, oil, emotions, food, gold, clean air, water, relationships, toys, medicine, labor… in their interest, not ours.


If they control money, they have the resources and ability to artificially increase prices so that you and I cannot afford them as easily, but so that they can. Take this example where both a Democrat and a Republican’s actions decreased output and forced the allocation of resources away from what you and I would do freely on our own, and to where they personally thought they should be.

Regulations on U.S. manufacturing may reduce output by as much as $500 billion this year, according to an industry-sponsored study that cast doubts on President Barack Obama’s efforts to trim red tape in the federal government.

The Obama administration has established an average of 72 regulations on manufacturers annually, an increase from the 45 per year imposed under President George W. Bush, according to the study, commissioned by the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, based in Arlington, Virginia.



Let’s say you go to your friend’s house and tell him, “I do not like your yellow shutters, now I am telling you that you have to paint them blue.” Your friend would probably laugh and ask you where you get the nerve to tell them what to do. That was you trying to govern his actions and reallocate resources. Had he felt it was in his self-interest, he would have already had the shutters blue, but yellow appealed to his unique preferences to maximize his benefits when weighed against his costs.


Let’s consider that your friend likes you a lot and takes your opinion to heart and does AGREE to change the color of his shutters. That is a VOLUNTARY action based on acting in his self-interest to increase his benefits. If he values friendship, your opinion, the decreased chance of conflict, less hassle or any combination of more than he what the cost of materials and labor to paint the shutters, he would choose to do so.  On the contrary, forcing your will upon someone else is governing them.


Had he been forced to rather than voluntarily choosing to change his shutters, that is not in his self-interest, that is in the self-interest of the governing agent. The homeowner had no issue with the color, the governing agent did. So how does changing the color to blue somehow represent the will of the public? After all, the U.S. government is supposed to be for the people and is supposed to promote their welfare. This simple example just clearly explained how a government’s action can never be for the public’s welfare, but rather it is for only those in control’s welfare. If the principle of government cannot hold up to a simple transaction such as this, how can it stand up to complicated issues of today such as health care, race relations, international trade, space exploration? It can’t.


Despite this fact, the government dictates nearly every aspect of our life. The average taxpayer hands over close to $300,000 unadjusted for inflation in Federal Income Taxes alone in their lifetime. Businesses have annual increased costs in the billions of dollars, but then are criticized when they cannot hire. To get married we have to get permission and file paperwork with the government. We have to hand over our retirement savings in the form of social security to the government (to then be given to others who did not pay into the system, thus bankrupting the program). We are told who we can and cannot date (interracial marriage was illegal, gay marriage is illegal, polygamy is illegal…). We are told what we can and cannot buy. We can have our private property seized against out will. We have our electronic and non-electronic communications monitored. We are told what we can and cannot say and where we can and cannot say it. We are told what to learn and how to think as we are mandated to attend their schools to repeat the ideas that is in their self-interest and not ours. We have our college tuition raised beyond the free market rates. We are told who we have to allow onto our property and who we have to associate with. Should I continue?


Despite these economic and logical facts, many in the public will repeat the same things they have been told in the public (government ran schools that teaches a curriculum in their self-interest) schools or argue something like, “I see what you are saying, but we need SOME government.  What about roads? What about the military and police? What about criminals?”


What about them? Basic biological survival depends on food, water and shelter. So what about food? What about water? What about shelter? When you are hungry you voluntarily go to a grocery store. When you are hungry you voluntarily go down the aisles and pick out what you want to eat that night. When you are hungry you voluntarily give up money or other resources to pay for the food you selected. When you are hungry you voluntarily cook the food. When you are hungry you voluntarily eat the food. It is a pretty simple concept. Why are roads an exception? They aren’t, but the government officials have directly and indirectly raised us to believe they are.


We for the most part have a demand preference for roads. We desire and want well-maintained roads. When we INVOLUNTARILY give the government money in the form of theft, I mean taxes, they pay engineers and laborers to build your roads and they pay them not just enough to cover their costs, they pay them a profit. If individuals are profiting from building roads, individuals that work for established organizations… why can that not be done VOLUNTARILY without a government?


Roads are seen as public goods, essentially a product that is consumed as a societal whole instead of individually, but then again, so is electricity, but yet (minus government monopolies) they have figured out systems to bill voluntary consumers on a monthly basis. The government system also encourages the “free rider” problem. This is where one person pays for something, but someone who paid nothing for it gets to use it. Let’s say you bought your kids a pool and set it up in your back yard, how would you feel if you woke up and had strangers swimming in it? That is the free rider problem caused by government services/public goods. In a voluntary system of exchanges, you pay  what you are willing to give up to receive what you want to maximize your well-being. Roads could function under a subscription services, a voluntary agreement to pay set amounts into the construction and maintenance, or through tolls. As a matter of fact, some governments pay for their road services through tolls anyways. They put up tolls long enough to pay for the cost of building the road, and then the tolls are removed.


The Bert T. Combs Mountain Parkway was built in the early 1960s and opened in January 1963 as Kentucky’s second toll road. The route was originally signed only as the ‘Mountain Parkway’. In the late 1970s, the “Bert T. Combs” name was added to honor the governor from the mountains who spearheaded construction of the highway. Auxiliary plates were added above the circular Mountain Parkway signs to mark the designation.

As with all of Kentucky’s toll roads, the tolls were removed as the construction bonds were paid off. Tolls were removed from the four-lane section in 1985, and the road became a freeway in 1986 when the remaining tolls were removed from the two-lane section.


The exact same way the government pays for roads, expect on a voluntary basis instead of forcibly taking your money and artificially raising prices through regulations and the inability to have competitive pricing, roads could be built, maintained and paid for.


The same concept goes for police, firefighters, paramedics and all other social public services. Historically speaking, these services actually used to be done without the government, but was taken over.


As for crime, there is logic behind the madness of criminals. Criminals too are acting in their self-interest and measuring their benefits against their costs. For whatever circumstances in their life, they value obtaining the resources in the manner they are doing so that is viewed negatively by the public as higher than the risk of being caught and punished and the social backlash. As demonstrated above, police can be ran without the government. Even in the event that it could not be, we have a government now, but yet crime continues to happen and continues to increase. So even if no government was not a solution to crime, government is certainly not a solution either. In reality though, crime and other socially frowned upon actions such as murder, rape and theft would still face consequences in a system without government just as they do in one with a government. One cannot logically say, “If I do not have a President in charge of me I am going to sit and watch a guy rape and murder my wife.” It is as illogical as it is outlandish.


To summarize, government acting in the public’s best interests and promoting the general welfare is a convoluted and illogical statement and argument. By the very nature of society, of people, of economics and reasoning skills, the idea that entities and people put in charge of others while conflicting against their self-interest will somehow be for the better of everyone makes no sense. It is impossible for others to know one another’s preferences and form public policy to promote it, and since the individual is already acting in their self-interest and on their preferences, having an entity do the same would be redundant and illogical as well. All benefits that could be offered through a government that is done so through the theft of resources can be done so in a more efficient and voluntary basis. If the same benefits offered by a government is offered at a lower price, it is logical that the alternative method be chosen. After all, why would you pay $500 for your Iphone if it is offered to you for $400?


Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine review

Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine review

A Review of the Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine


Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine was first published in 1929. The main objective of Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine is to cater for the latest and most accurate information, reports and opinions about the business world. In the beginning the magazine printed segments that covered subjects such as labor, economics, advertising and administration. Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine was a true pioneer in reporting international political issues that in would go on to impact the entire business world.


Contains Accurate and Reliable Buisiness Information

Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine contains accurate business information that people need on time, and is reported in a reliable and unbiased manner. The independent reports have won the hearts and minds of business people the world over due to their in-depth news and reports. Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine manages to cover all the latest and most important issues of the day and has won international awards for journalism.

Rivals the Wall Street Journal for Excellence

In my view, you will find it hard to get a more up to date business news publication anywhere with perhaps exception to the Wall Street Journal.  The Bloomberg reporters present their columns in an easy to understand style that help business people keep entirely up to date with local and international business matters. The content inside the magazine varies between corporate company outlines, dialogue with business, the rise and fall of a variety of corporations around the globe plus news on expansions within commerce, trade and the financial system at large.

Has Changed to Adapt with the Modern Times

Over the years though, the magazine has undergone some radical changes.  In order to help meet the challenges of the current business world, the Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine has completely changed itself – for example, it now has an extensive technology and social media section inside it.  A full list of the different sections and features are listed below:


  • Technology and Social Media
  • Stock Market Tables and Listings
  • Company Profiles from Wall Street and Nasdaq
  • News, Commentary and Opinion from Business Leaders


Bloomberg is Trusted in Business Circles World Wide


Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine is one of the most trusted sources for of all the necessary, wide-ranging insight that businessmen relay on to move ahead in business. The magazine caters for a worldwide viewpoint and has a readership of more than 4.8 million people globally scattered over 140 countries. The magazine has over 2,350 journalists contributing to the online and print editions, with more than 146 offices in 72 different countries.  The readership of the magazine is growing each year with website views up 9% every single month.


Author Bio: Jane Middlecamp is a financial blogger who contributes to some of the leading financial and business websites.  Jane reads Bloomberg every week – you can sign up and subscribe yourself or read a more comprehensive Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine Review on the Wall Street Subscriptions website.