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.

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 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.

Revenue collection is always the backbone of all that goes around in every business. Though this is the case, if you do not manage this revenue properly, your business profits will always be a thing of the past. You will always be incurring losses all through. Therefore if you need a business that has got great profits, there is the need to always consider these tips and strategies especially in managing your business profits.

• 1. Sales increase

Though the huge profits that your business is experiencing, it is important to also increase your business sales. This will help you to able to meet all the other expenses that your business profit needs to cater for. It is your sole responsibilities to always make sure that these sales are therefore increased in any way possible.

• 2. Reducing your business expenses

Reducing your business expenses has always been the proper way to always manage your business profits. This should be based to all the operating costs that you incur in your business especially when offering services. This also applies when you are selling both the finished and semi-finished products to your clients.

• 3. Managing your customer relationship

Your customers are the main contributors to your business profits. For this reason, managing your relationship with them should always be your responsibility especially if you want to maximize your business revenues. This management is also important for maintaining your clientele thus increasing your market shares. Many people have no idea about this trick and if they have, they always tend to forget that its importance in their business.

• 4. Automating your revenue management

Though this strategy for your business profit management may seem difficult and challenging for some businesses, it is one of the best when it comes to managing your revenues and business profits. The idea behind this automation is to always increase the speed in term of how your business staffs processes payment for the various customers that purchase items in your company or business. This has great influence on how your business is able to maximize its revenue collection after a short period.

• 5. Analyzing your business profit and reporting

Different businesses operate differently. For this reason, if your business is a partnership type of business, you need to always emphasize the need for sound and appropriate methods when it comes analyzing and reporting the profits made. This tip is beneficial especially when it comes to sharing of the profits and also making sound steps to help the business move in the next level. This will also be helpful when it comes to appropriate planning for all your business activities that will increase the growth and profits for your business.

To be able to achieve all these strategies, good management and leadership should be put in place. This management happens to be the backbone of all businesses that strives through the challenges that are always experienced in most of the businesses in the current world markets. Therefore if you really need to see the fruits of your business and leap good profits, you need to always emphasize the needs for these tips and strategies.

Author Bio – Heather Jones writes articles as a part of her work and her articles have been published on various sites. Being a refined writer, she has provided useful information to people on Roof Cladding so that it can help them for appropriate details.

In its history we have seen new powers been self -granted by the courts, full disregard for the law, inconsistencies and contradictions in their rulings, full on reversals of their opinions despite the law not changing, and an increasing list of morally and legally indefensible decisions.

By looking at the history of the Supreme Court and their rulings it is evident of the level of corrupt and disregard the judges have for the law. Their legal opinions have left the realm of any legal backing, and are based entirely on their personal opinions. The following excerpts from their long history will clearly demonstrate their inability to act in defense of the constitution, the country, humanity, or the oath they swear upon. Now begins the look into their history accompanied with commentary.

In one of the earliest cases, Johnson V M’Intosh (1823), the cours ruled unanimously that Native Americans have no property rights. In the same ruling, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that discovery is the determining factor in ownership, but specifically only for European discovery. Discovery is the criteria for ownership… if you are white. This is a classic decision that was contradictory, but it set the early tone for how the courts would be ruling til this very day.

——————

One of the most recognized cases was Marburry v. Madison (1803). The U.S. Constitution clearly lays out the powers and limitations of all 3 branches of the government. While being specific on a wide range of issues, it never once states that the Supreme Court is able to declare a law unconstitutional. It was just within years that the court lied and made up a power that it has that is still used to this very day to take away liberties from the people. Judicial review and interpretation rights are nowhere to be found in their scope of powers.

———-

The “commerce clause” is one of those misused terms that the government has used to steal money from its citizens, tax citizens into poverty, bail out their companies and friends, increase the costs of doing business and raise prices as they get rich at the expense of the public. The clause literally reads as, “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;” Commerce by definition is an interexchange of goods and services. So congress has the power to regulate trade between foreign nations, indian tribes and between states. This seems to be a complicated concept for lawmakers, justices and politicians, so let’s break down this simple 1 sentence line into easier to understand statements. Congress is legally allowed to regulate trade between states (states trading). Congress is legally allowed to regulate trade between nations (nations trading). Congress is allowed to regulate trade with Indian tribes (trades with Indians). It is LIMITED to regulating trade and trade only. “Quality” standards are illegal. Emission standards are illegal. Mandates to buy products are illegal. Limits on work hours are illegal. Discrimination laws for private (private property) companies are illegal. Bailouts are illegal. Limits on salary are illegal. Literally near 99% of all government regulations on businesses and individuals are illegal. The Commerce Clause does not say, “Congress can regulate trade and regulate the economy, an industry or a business. It specifically says only “[trade]”.

Not only are the illegally giving themselves power, but in the event that they were to say their illegal act was indeed legal, that means it is legal! Common sense, but that is above the Supreme Court. They rule something is legal, they rule the exact same thing is illegal, then it is legal and then it is illegal again. The constitution did not change; they were lying one of the times.

In Gibbons v Ogden the court allowed the illegal regulation of the economy, though to be fair, they did rule correctly in that case. The regulation of the economy by New York was illegal, but instead of striking down the lie that allowed them to make the illegal decision, they used the lie to say the decision was illegal. Logical. This obscene decision would have been alright had they been consistent though. In 1895 the Supreme Court began reversing course and saying that the previous decisions that allowed the illegal regulation of the economy was no longer as “legal” as they said it was. For 40 years they stayed on the reverses course until the 1930’s when they changed their mind again. So it was illegal by the constitution to regulate the economy, but the courts ruled it was legal and expanded their regulations they said were legal, then they changed their mind and said that those regulations are not legal, then they changed their minds and said that they were legal once again. The law did not change during that time. The Commerce Clause did not change. The only thing that changed was the personal opinions of judges. Courts are legally required to rule based on the law, not their opinions. Illegal, Legal, Illegal, Legal. Consistency. Someone was lying when they kept changing their mind.

The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (1825) is one of the best cases by the corrupt Supreme Court. In its opinion it was ruled that, “that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property.” Sadly they were talking about humans, not a commodity. It is good to know that the Constitution in some imaginary invisible ink had an amendment that stated “forced boarding onto a ship is the equivalent of being property.” Oh wait it doesn’t.

In an interesting case that applies to the recent health care ruling, Paul v. Virginia ruled that the commerce clause does not apply to insurance. If the constitution supposedly says that (which is doesn’t), then why was the healthcare case even heard on the grounds that the individual mandates violated the commerce clause? It can’t violate the clause if insurance doesn’t apply… Though in fairness, the other immense list of price increasing regulations did violate the commerce clause. That is ok though, they won’t rule on that because regulation is illegal, I mean legal, I mean illegal, I mean legal, I mean whatever lie the courts wake up and say that morning.

Reynolds v United States ruled that polygamy is protected by the constitution and to this day people are still not allowed to be in consensual relationships as they choose. It was the 7^th amendment that said marriage is a right as long as it’s limited to one person, right? No. Another lie and illegal ruling by the courts.

————-

——-

An almost silly if not for how utterly pathetic and corrupt it is, Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), ruled that regardless of the definition, a tomato is now a vegetable and not a fruit. By definition it is a fruit, but words mean whatever the court wants it to mean in their effort to fraud and strip away liberties from the population. Just like how a mandate to force someone to buy something is now called a “tax.” It’s not, but dictionaries and definitions can be disregarded at will by the honorable court.

Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915) was an embarrassing 9 to 0 vote ruling that freedom of speech does not apply to movies.   I forgot that the first amendment read as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (unless it is applied to a new media format), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” They lied again and stole rights once again. Strangely enough and with the courts tradition of being consistent and ruling on personal beliefs instead of law, it was over turned in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson. The constitution was not amended to say “not it is legal to express speech in movies.” The only thing that changes was the justices and how they lied that day. In a similar ruling that still exists to this day, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) stated that freedom of speech does not exist in “clear and present danger.” Ironically, once again that phrase is nowhere to be found in the first amendment. The only thing to be found is the continued lies and hypocrisies of the Supreme Court as they continue to steal away rights.

—-

——-

United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar was a case where the courts ruled that apple cider vinegar is mislabeled when that vinegar is made from dried apples. It is so entirely absurd and nonsensical it doesn’t merit a response either beyond this, “Vinegar isn’t vinegar because we said so.” Excellent use of power.

Lum v. Rice was a simple case that determined equal protection under the law does not extend to American citizens that were too yellow skinned. The same “separate but equal” lie was given to African Americans as well. It strangely was another one of those cases that was ruled as legal, then illegal despite no changes to the constitution. Once again the justices were lying.

————

Valentine v. Chrestensen: Free speech is not protected by the first amendment that protects free speech. Consistency and lies once again.

—

—–

Prince v. Massachusetts kept up the tradition of the courts hating Jehova’s Witnesses. If a mother or father is handing something out, their children cannot participate side by side with the family. Though idiotically enough, it was fine if they participated as long as the boy was over the age of 12 and the girl over the age of 18. Where does it say that in the constitution again?

—-

————-

———

———–

Let’s cut it off there. Just a small sample of our court’s corrupt and contradictory history filled full of lies. Obamacare is constitutional so we can rest easy at night knowing that it is as constitutional as blacks being property, yellow skinned people not being allowed to be citizens, freedom of speech not being free speech, word’s definitions are not defined by their definitions and a large list of other legal obscenities.

Something is either constitutional, or it is not constitutional. It does not change without an amendment. The courts have used their history to seize power, lie, rule on their opinions, push racist agendas onto the population, steal from the population and serve as the most corrupt branch of government. When a court rules something constitutional, it means absolutely nothing, as they have watered down the word to mean nothing through contradictions and lies. But at least we can say Obamacare has now joined the ranks of blacks being property if they are forced on a boat.

An opportunity cost is defined as the foregone benefits from choosing one decision over another. The cliche, though classic, example is of a young adult deciding whether to study or to go party. If he parties, the opportunity cost is the benefits he would have obtained from instead studying. That would include the direct result of a higher grade, the money saved from not driving to the party and spending time driving, the health consequences of avoided had he not drank all that alcohol and so forth. Had the student instead chose to study over partying, the opportunity cost is the lost benefits that would have been gained had he chosen to study instead, such as : creating good memories, the time spent with friends, socializing, relaxing during a stressful exam period… and so on.

Both of those situations provide utility to the student and thus provide a positive opportunity cost. For an opportunity cost to ever “be negative” a situation would have to exist where negative utility would exist. The literal definition of an opportunity cost though, is the benefits foregone, not the cost foregone. Therefore, if a benefit is not provided in all alternative options, an opportunity cost is not presented.

Let us though for the sake of the argument and further discussion assume that ‘negative benefits’ is allowable, and that the definition is not to be taken literally. Once again, can opportunity cost be negative? Consider the following economic facts. Conceptually, diminishing marginal utility can lead to negative utility when additional units are consumed past a certain point. In practical senses though and in reality, the nth unit that  provides negative utility is never considered. It is a staple of neoclassical economic thinking that all decision making entities act in their self-interest and are logical as to choose only decisions where benefits > costs. So when creating a table or in discussion we can say “conceptually the nth unit will lead to negative utility”, however in reality and for practical purposes that just isn’t so. When the nth unit is obtained that provided 0 utility, no additional  units are consumed. So in a literal sense, negative utility cannot be obtained via declining marginal utility.

can opportunity cost be negative

Applying the same concept to opportunity cost explains the question of “can opportunity cost be negative?” As decision makers, any action that leads to negative utility is never considered. If it is not considered it cannot be foregone and thus cannot be measured as an opportunity cost. Therefore the answer is, opportunity cost cannot be negative.

Many individuals that analyze this question assume they can disregard definitions and the assumptions that make  up there very model in which the term opportunity cost is derived from. That is an inconsistent way of thinking however. It would be more appropriate to state however that while an opportunity cost appears to exist when measured/analyzed, but upon choosing one decision it is revealed that the outcome is negative utility. Perceived utility does not always  match the actual outcome due to information asymmetry and impacting variables that may deviate from the expected values. In that case though, it would no longer be presented as an opportunity cost and would better be referred to as simply a cost incurred.

 Opportunity Cost Cannot be Negative

In short though. An opportunity cost cannot be negative.

Leave your comments and opinions below.

Basic Argument: Just like with the gold standard, the currency is backed by real commodities in an economy instead of being backed through no object of wealth as is currently being done on a global level. Money should be tied to economic exchanges of measured value, and not tied to the “predictive” printing of a federal entity or speculators or other regulators trying to manipulate the flow of money into an economy for their own normative economic reasons.

Expansion upon the argument: In economics, utility is the representation of one’s preferences of goods, services and interactions. When faced with a decision on whether to go out to a party tonight or stay at home and study for a finals exam the next morning, what is the best decision to do? Obviously, not every person makes the same decision? Why is that? When decision making is done by an individual, they are weighing their perceived benefits against their perceived costs. When B (benefits) is greater than C (Costs) a transaction or interaction is deemed as in one’s self-interest. B > C  = Acting in a logical self-interest. The benefits in the above mentioned example would be the fun attributed to the party, the good memories created that night, the idea of living life to the fullest, and the interactions at the party between others that provide overall happiness… so on. The direct costs associated with going to the party include the price of gasoline to get to the party and the time it takes to get to the party where something else could have been done. Also related is the concept of the opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is what is given up to do one transaction. If the party is attended instead of studying, the opportunity cost is the benefits that would have been realized through studying. If studying is chosen over the party, the opportunity cost is the benefits that would have been realized partying. Through personally analyzing the benefits and the costs, one can determine based on the available information, which decision would benefit them the most.

For a basic demonstration see:

Every single person in the world has their own utility functions. Functions are relations between a group of inputs against outputs. In a utility function, utility is dependent on variables that impact utility. Not every individual has the same function however. We all have different life experiences, we are genetically different, and we come from different cities and culture and climates… In short, different things make different people happy. One person may have determined it was in their best interest to party instead of studying, while another would have chosen that it is in their best interest to study over partying. Variables that could impact their two utility functions for this specific event would be: Their social interaction ability and how they get along in groups, their emotional feeling that evening based on prior events, the grade they already had in the class, how many hours they had already previously studied, what point they were on a diminishing marginal utility curve for both activities, how they were raised to view each activity, how much sleep they had the previous night…

One’s utility is not an easily or directly observable or measureable variable however. It is for that reason that in an economy, interactions should thus be based on “revealed preferences” (Paul Samuelson). Utility is in short, one’s desires. Since it cannot be measured directly, it should be measured as the willingness to pay for what they derive utility from. If partying provides you with utility and you give up your time, studying and the other opportunity costs that are equivalent in (for simplicity sake) today’s US. dollars as “100 dollars” then the party is worth $100 to you.

The same goes for when one individual goes and buys a pizza for $10, while another person goes out and pays $13 for a pizza and another individual pays only $8. The 3 individuals have their own utility functions that makes a pizza worth only so much to them.

Since one’s personal utility is unique for themselves and they have their own unique benefits gained from each transaction, that also means they are willing to pay up their own unique “prices” or costs. That is the basis for exchanges in a market. The traditional exchange system is the barter system. If Person A has 10 apples and person B has 6 pairs of shoes, and person A needs apples and B needs shoes (specialization of labor), they meet the coincidence of double wants and an exchange can occur. In this hypothetical transaction, person A values 1 pair of shoes at 10 utils (generic measure of utility for demonstration’s sake) and values each apple at 2 utils. Therefore he would be willing to give 1 to 4 apples for the pair of shoes. If Person B values each apple at 3 utils and each pair of shoes at 6 utils, that means he would be willing to give up a pair of shoes in exchange for 3 or more apples.

Both individuals have an item the other wants, meeting the coincidence of double wants, and both individuals have utility functions that allows benefits to outweigh the costs, allowing an exchange to occur. Person A would give up 3 apples for 1 pair of shoes. Person A would gain 4 utils, while person B would gain 3 utils.

The need for a medium of exchange was quickly realized as it was time consuming to carry apples and shoes around person to person looking for a situation of the coincidence of double wants, the weight of carrying the trade items around was burdensome, and the practice was overall unrealistic. Therefore it was essential to create a medium of exchange for transactions.

A medium of exchange is an intermediary that is used in transactions. A medium of exchange must meet the criteria of being and being able to: value goods and services and interactions, have store of value, have little cost for its preservation, be divisible, be recognized as a form of tender, not be easily counterfeited, and have higher value than its size and weight (transportability) . In the current global model, “money” is used as the medium of exchange. Bills, coins, checks, electronic credit cards, Escrow, Paypal… are all forms of money. They are the medium of exchange.

In a gold standard, gold is not the medium of exchange; it is what the medium of exchange is backed up by. The concept relates to limiting the amount of currency in circulation to the total value of one commodity (gold). Gold like every single good, item, service, investment and other interaction receives its value from the same source. As stated above, we have our utility preferences. Gold derives its value from this source as well.

When used in terms of making exchanges on specifics, the utility function  can be converted down into a demand function. Example: A demand function is the amount of a product demanded for each combination of price and the other factors.

Quantity Demanded = D(price, contributing factors)

Example:  If demand of pizza is affected by its price, the price of hamburgers, the price of tacos and the consumer’s income, then the demand function will be like this:

Qd of Pizza = 5    -   3P*pizza     +         5P*hamburgers       +            2P*tacos          +      .0002*M

Where:

Qd is quantity demanded

P is price (utils)

M is consumer’s income

5 is the constant utility for the individual if all prices were zero

The price of pizza has a negative sign because as price goes up it has a negative correlation on the amount demanded. The price of hamburgers and tacos has a positive sign because as they price of the alternative products to pizza goes up, the amount of pizza demanded is higher because its comparative price changes. Consumer’s income is positive because the more income the consumer makes, the more money they have to spend on pizza.

The same concept applies towards gold. Since gold is scarcer, people tend to value it more. A potential demand function for gold could be:

Qd of Gold(ounce) = 100    -   4P*gold  +         5P*platinum       +            2P*diamonds        +      .0031*M

–Essentially, the demand for gold is a function of income, the price for platinum, diamonds…

Other variables factor into demand functions just as they do utility functions because the relative benefits received from other items determine which purchase provides the most benefits to the individual. When we go out to eat at a restaurant and see a steak dinner costing $50, but a grilled chicken costing only $20, even though we as a society as a whole may prefer the taste of steak over chicken, depending on our income and the price of its complement goods (chicken) we may determine the benefits gained from chicken as a function of taste, price and health outweigh the benefits gained from steak against the same variables.

Example of a demand function plotted on a graph as a demand curve:

As previously stated, gold is not the exception. Nothing in existence has a default value. They are all functions of demand/utility.

Of course in an exchange there must be at least 2 individuals or components exchanging. The opposite side is known as the supplier, hence where their utility is converted to a supply function.

Quantity Supplied = S(Price, Contributing factors)

Supply Function Curves are generally upward sloping.

Example: If the supply of pizza is affected by pizza’s price, the price of tomatoes and the price of cheese, the supply will look like this:

QsPizza =       10        +     6Ppizza               -    3Ptomatoe           -                    2Pcheese

Where:

QsPizza = Quantity supplied of pizza

P = price

10 = Number of pizza supplied if all prices are zero

Quantity supplied goes up as the price of pizza goes up and it quantity supplied goes down as the price of cheese and tomatoes go up.

Example of a supply function plotted on a graph as a supply curve

In a market where individuals seek to maximize their well-being/utility the demand curve and the supply curve are brought to equilibrium. By plotting individual’s supply and demand functions on a graph the equilibrium level can easily be viewed as the place where the 2 intersect.

Notice the horizontal dotted line. The triangular shape above it is the utility that is derived for the consumer. The triangular shape below it is the utility for the supplier.

We all know though that an economy consists of more than 2 individuals. To derive an aggregate supply and demand curve we simply horizontally sum.

So now we have determined why exchanges occur, how items receive value (including gold), what a medium of exchange is, what money is, how to convert utility functions into manageable monetary units , how to account for individual and aggregate supply and demand.

GDP:

GDP is the total number of monetary units summed up for the total consumption, investment, government expenditures and net of exports. Let’s remove government since the government artificially creating demand and making purchases is immoral at best. So that leaves GDP as:

GDP= C + I + X

As stated previously, the total value of goods and services and other market interactions can be transferred to a medium of exchange. In addition, transactions only occur where both sides based upon their own preferences are acting to make themselves better off as their benefits outweigh their costs.

Example:

In a market where person A purchases pizza for a gain of utility that is equatable to10 money units, Person B purchases Gold for 50 money units, Person C  purchases labor hours for 15 units, Person D purchases shoes for 15 units,  Person E invests in savings an amount of 10 units. The sum is 100 units. For simplicity’s sake, let’s assume all of these transactions are enough to satisfy each person’s desires for an entire year.  That means literally only 100 units of money was needed that year for all transactions to make every person the best well-off they could be. The GDP is 100 units and it only took 100 units to obtain exactly what every person needed and desired.

If 100 units of money satisfies every single market transaction and is based upon the free market exchanges, why should there be 101, 102, 105, 200, 300, 1000 units of money existing? If it took 100 units to satisfy every single market transaction, how could 90 money units suffice?

The Federal Reserve does not print money based on transactions, but rather it prints on monetary policy to “grow” or contract” the economy and to lead to their desired market results.

The Gold Standard is based on saying that gold is worth a set amount and only that much money units can be made. If all of the gold in existence was valued at 80 money units, then in the case of the above simplified economy, it would have been unable to account for 20 money units required for exchange. One or  more people WOULD  NOT have been able to make a free market and free-willed transaction based  upon the regulatory action of  limiting money supply not to the level that supply and demand requires,  but to the level of one commodity in an economy.

As the GDP example above the total market equilibrium level of money units was 100 units. Many gold standard proponents argue that gold’s value is constant, which as demonstrated above it is not, but if we were to assume it was. How could the gold standard thus adjust for changes in utility functions, demand functions and supply functions? If a famine occurs, food is now worth more as it is scarcer. If the population grows and more individuals are interacting in the market, more units are needed. A constant variable such as gold cannot make adjustments for constantly changing variables.

Some argue that that means one should simply make more money on gold, but if you make the dollar divisible into more units, that just means the units are smaller. Dividing the dollar 100 times is the same as 1 penny. The same applies for gold. Dividing its value into smaller units just means more smaller units.

With a GDP standard, if the GDP in month 1 was 100 units, that means 100 money units should be in circulation. If the population grows and it now requires 110 money units for all transactions to exist, that means 110 money units exist. If diminishing marginal utility occurs and thus price goes down and only 80 money units are needed, then units are removed and only 80 units exist.

Money units just like everything else has a supply and demand curve. They are representations of the aggregate supply and demand curves of all of the transactions in a market. When money units are not spent, but rather invested it is done so because just like all transactions, they are done because the benefits outweigh the costs. The benefits of investing or saving outweigh the cost (what could have been purchased if spent instead of investing). We invest money in return for additional benefits often times known as interest. Going back to the equilibrium demonstration for supply and demand:

Or

The concept is the same. So what would happen if money supply was not set to the equilibrium level where supply and demand intercept? Let’s assume that by controlling the money supply by using gold instead of by using the free market functions that supply of money units is higher than what is required to equal the total of money units required in a market for a given period. Therefore the supply curve would shift up. Bringing the new supply curve in equilibrium with the unchanging demand curve results in:

Note how the equilibrium is now at a different location than what exists naturally in a free market. In money supply terms it would lower real income (money is now worth less) and raise the interest rate (there is too much in circulation so to force itself back to the natural equilibrium level it encourages holding onto money).

The shaded blue area is the difference in the true market equilibrium and the artificially created equilibrium due to placing monetary units on something of higher value instead of based on the aggregate true market value. The blue area is known as dead weight loss, it is economic inefficiency and the inefficient allocation of resources. In short, it takes away utility by cutting into producer and consumer surplus. Thus it makes people worse off.

The gold standard however is just one of millions if not billions plus items of value in an economy. So in reality it would fail to account for the total number of money units that is needed, thus shifting the supply curve down.

Once again, the free market equilibrium no longer exists. Supply artificially lowers by using the gold standard. This creates fake and excessive spending power that decreases the incentive to save and invest money – instead of being at the free market level of spending and saving/investing.

Once again the blue shaded area is the difference between the free market  equilibrium level and the artificially created equilibrium level created through a regulatory practice of artificially limiting money unit supply to just the value of one item. And once again you cut into people’s and society’s well-being making them as a whole worse off. Essentially you are forcing them to act a way against their will.

When having an economy based on money unit supply being equal to money unit demand based on the aggregate free-willed (free market) transactions of all individuals (summed up by GDP) then you get this:

And after never interfering and having money unit supply equal to the market desires you get this:

No dead weight loss. No change. No regulatory interference. No loss of utility. Society is at the highest utility it can be in its market conditions.

 Alternate to the Gold Standard

Conclusion: A gold standard does not account for the total demand desires for a population and therefore acts as a regulation that decreases social utility by underproviding for its population. A GDP standard where supply is equal to demand accounts for society’s total utility preferences leading to maximized social welfare. The practicality of implementation of both forms of money circulation is the same and the measurement of value in both systems is the same. Since all variables in determining which model to be used are the same with the exception of one, and that exception is the decrease of people’s well-being when the gold standard is applied, it is logically and morally correct to use a GDP standard.

Are you having second thoughts about investing in a certificate of deposit? Since it will be involving your money, you might be worrying about the potential risk that it can have. This article will help you decide on whether or not to invest on a certificate of deposit.

Before everything else, let us take a look at what a certificate of deposit or CD is all about. This is a time deposit offered to consumers by banks, thrift institutions, and credit unions. Like a savings account, a certificate of deposit is inured so you do not have to worry about the risks. CDs are protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for banks or by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for credit unions. However, unlike a savings account, certificates of deposits have a fixed term and interest rate.

Certificates of deposits are designed to be kept until the maturity period. In return, the bank or financial institution will grant higher interest rates than on accounts that can be withdrawn anytime. CDs will require a minimum deposit and you will receive a passbook or paper certificate. It usually involves a book entry or an item shown in the consumer’s periodic bank statements.

When considering investing on certificates of deposits, you first need to determine your time frame. If you will not be using the money in the near future or very soon, then certificates of deposits can be an option. Likewise, you should take a look at the interest rate. This will usually be dependent on the prevailing rates. So for example, if inflation is on the rise, go for a short-term CD. But if the economy is falling, opt for a long-term CD.

When taking out a CD, choose what’s best for your situation. If you are looking for a two-year investment but do not want to have a low rate, a bump-up CD may suit your needs. On the other hand, a liquid CD will let you take out a part of your deposit during an emergency. Another way is to considering “laddering.” This way, part of your deposit can be made available while you are protected from increasing interest rates.

Frank Marks is a writer and blogger for a business merchandise company selling business pens in bulk . He writes helpful guides about a wide range of topics but concentrates most on business, technology and travel-related posts.

Remember when recession hit the world a few years back? A lot of us were shocked how seemingly-stable financial institutions crashed before our eyes and before we knew it, people started losing their homes and their jobs. Many were not aware how it started, or what caused it because we were too busy living our everyday lives and minding our own routine.

To prevent the same dilemma from happening again, one should take time to be more informed regarding how to handle his/her finances. Here are a few things that could be done in order to keep yourself in the know about money matters:

1. See finance as something important to you. Many people tend to turn away when money is being discussed, and this is because they think that it’s hard to comprehend. Truth is, it’s not that complicated when one starts to take interest in it. Once you see the relevance of learning finance in your life and how you can profit from it, it would be easier for you to motivate yourself to learn it.

1. Start learning the topic that’s most relevant to you. Be it about loans, savings or investment, you will find that it can be interesting if you can see how you can benefit from your new knowledge. To ease the feeling of being overwhelmed, try to take in one topic at a time.

1. Utilize resources from the government and the private sector. In an effort to make US citizens more aware about personal finance, the government, and other private groups has launched some programs to help make financial literacy more accessible.

1. Read business news and finance articles. To gain better perspective on how global events affect the finance world, and vice versa, it would be good to start a habit to tune in to current events. Spark that habit by not skipping the finance section of the daily paper.

1. Talk to professionals. Next time you visit the bank, try talking to one of their bankers about how your alternatives to traditional savings account, and other investment options. They are very knowledgeable about these topics and are willing to help their customers.

Whatever resource you have on hand, make sure you make the most out of it. The internet alone is full of useful materials. You can have access to financial tools, news feeds and helpful money management tips. Just make sure you double check the credibility of the articles you read and the people you speak to, because there are also some people who wants to take advantage of unsuspecting newbies to the financial world.

Amy C. Fountain is a businesswoman who is running the Tabletop Fountains and Home Décor Art websites. She utilizes her blogging talents to help people become more educated on personal finance.

Regardless of your income, a financial planner can help you with the whole world of finance, something which many people have no idea about. This ‘world’ is full of terms and phrases that somebody who does not have a financial background will not understand, and this can be to their detriment. Here, we will explore what a financial planner can help you with and why they can be so valuable to you personally.

Successful Management of your Finances

If you have disposable income, a financial planner can advise you about what to do with it so your money is making the best amount of money. There are many financial products on the market, and the reality is that the consumer does not know the first thing about them. A financial planner knows which ones are the best for your situation. Handling your finances in the correct way will mean that you gain more from this money, which will leave you in a better situation over time.

Of course, a financial planner can help you with your current financial situation as well. They will take a look over your finances to see where they think you can save money. This will be helpful for the long term because you have more disposable income.

Financial Planning Help

If you do decide to go ahead with financial planning, in your very first meeting with a planner, they will discuss your long-term goals, which will help them decide what they can do for you. A financial planner will often look at your estate, your retirement plans, your current situation, your goals and any insurances that you have in place. They then break down and evaluate each one before telling you how they think you will be able to improve each one of them.

Offer some Needed Perspective

We all have goals, even if they are to maintain your current situation. A financial planner pulls no punches and will let you know if you are being too optimistic or pessimistic. This advice is crucial because there are many people who have huge plans for their retirement, but the reality is they may not be able to do them if they continue to live how they are. Discovering this too late can be devastating because what you think you have worked your whole life for could be something that cannot be financially fulfilled. A financial planner will tell you what you can expect from your current financial situation in the future. You can then form a new and more realistic picture of what to expect with the finances that you have in place.

The right financial planner will break things down and explain everything in layman’s terms so that you can understand every step of the way. Having a financial planner in place often will make you more money then you pay them. Furthermore, they save you a lot of time because they can handle every aspect of your finances.