Movie Review: Recount

Was this movie suppose to be biased? or Did they on accident put Dennis Quaid and Kevin Spacey on the Democrats side?

The movie hardly deserves a review. I am not a George W. Bush lover nor do I think everything that went on during that recount period was good. That is where me and the movie agree.

To cast Republicans as elites who are trying to find ever loophole is a typical Democratic view. All you have to do here is look at the two offices in the movie, that the Democrats have versus the Republicans. The Democrats’ office was messy and looked like something out of the show the West Wing. Something a common man could feel good about, it looks like hard and productive work was going on. The Republicans’ office looked dark and rich, like it was all earned through loopholes and corporate greed.

The best part of the movie is when Gore calls Bush to un-concede. The convo goes something like this:

Bush: “What do you mean you are taking back your concession?!?!”

Gore: “Don’t get snappy with me.” (says calmly)

Bush: “But my little brother assured me I won Florida.”

Gore: “Your little brother isn’t the final authority on this.”

Bush: “Do what you have to do, Mr. Vice President”

Do what you have to do? I really hope they had witnesses on both sides of the phone on that one.

Save your time and here is the basics of the movie. The Democrats were trying to count every vote. The Republicans were trying to get Bush elected through loopholes. Al Gore finally conceded to better America and he is a hero for that.

That is it, the whole movie in a paragraph. If you already know this then you can watch it for fun. If you disagree, well it will be shoved down your throat until you are coughing Al Gore is our President.

Did I mention they throw Joe Lieberman to the dogs? Like that isn’t what they have done since 2000.

~Marxsevelt

The Last Natives

Recent figures from agencies and reports around the world suggest there are approximately 100 or so “un-contacted” native tribes remaining. This is very interesting, because only a decade ago we thought every remaining native person had been discovered. The National Indian Foundation is a Brazilian agency that searches and tracks un-discovered people, in hopes of saving them from encroachment. The agency recently found a new tribe in the midst of the rainforest, and photos can be seen here.

Lets consider a few things here. Most governments that believe they contain undiscovered people have some sort of protectionism in place. That means that no unauthorized person, business or whatever can simply drive out and interact with the tribe. This is justified as a means of protecting the tribe from disease, murder or other negative consequences. This sounds reasonable considering the history between modernized-westerners and contact with native Americans…

But it this really the best procedure? Who’s to say the government of Brazil will handle the situation best? Assuming the tribe will eventually contact modern folks, isn’t sooner better? It’s hard to say.

After decades or research we have come to find some interesting things about undiscovered people and their societies. Our species, homo-sapien, is biologically evolved to a hunter-gatherer stage. That means we are adapted for a hunter-gatherer society, rather than the complicated world we currently enjoy. These indigenous people are likely a latter-stage hunter gatherer society. So what are some benefits to living in such a society?

-Resource distribution is essentially equal for all members (compare to modern societies were this is the complete opposite)

-Virtually no disease or medical complications to teenagers and older

-Virtually the same life-expectancy as modern people (actually better than in the US)

-No taxes

I like pointing out these facts because everyone assumes that these societies are terrible to live in, and only consider characteristics that are actually false. In my opinion, these people have it pretty good. There is another BIG reason that primitive societies are good/better than modern ones, but that is for another post.

-Bluesman51

The Economic Anatomy of a Breakup

Most of us have been through at least one breakup in our lives and we know how much fun they are. Usually it hurts both parties, one almost always more than the other. Can economics be applied here? Of Course! This is a continuation of my dream to start the foundation for the study of economics of relationships and dating.

Everyone has a supply and demand for love and being with other people romantically. They choose to be in a relationship when marginal benefit (MB) exceeds or is equal to marginal costs (MC). The choose to break up when marginal costs exceeds marginal benefits. Obviously, when I mean marginal the unit can be time.

When you first date someone and everything seems to be going perfect its because you have the initial spark everyone talks about. You are learning about each other and its fun. Information is flowing towards you and as a rational individual you will give forth the information that looks the best on you. This is somewhat like a stimulus package. In the short-term, you are shooting up your marginal benefit so that person stays with you.

In order to understand how a breakup happens we must look at how benefits and costs in a relationship change. After the honeymoon period ends this is when the MB and MC become more realistic. Therefore, we can assume there is asymmetrical information where obviously the person knows themselves better than you know them. Some of the things you find out may change your perceive cost of being with the person and that ends up in a break up.

The person who is breaking up with the other person obviously values being alone more then they value being with that person. This is why in many cases when people say, “we could try again another time” usually doesn’t happen. That was a way of comforting the other person while you get what you want and skate away. Break are often the same way. Many people say that breaks are just a transition to a breakup and in most cases I would imagine this to be true. The person is just trying out how life would be like without the other person.

People then get back together because they realize that being apart is more costly than they thought and that the marginal benefit actually exceed marginal costs. On again off against relationships are truly on the margin. The people in the relationship cannot figure out whether MB > MC or MB < MC and it probably is pretty close to MB = MC.

I haven’t really used this to solve any of the solutions but something to think about. So maybe this was all obvious to you or maybe it makes you look at a breakup differently.

~PCCapitalist

Are we in a recession?

~PCCapitalist

What is an equal opportunity?

Often in the debate between those who are leftist, like Democrats/Socialist/Communist, the argue of “I want an equal opportunity for everyone.” People that are considered to be “old money” or ones who never have held a real job in their life get on this band wagon. Like for example Teddy Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt, and the Clintons. So what is an equal opportunity and that becomes a lot harder for those to nail down?

It is perceived that we all enter this world in the same way and we have no choice to what parents we are born to. If we did they would come to the conclusion that we all would pick Donald Trump and Oprah to be our parents. Is it really that bad that we cannot choose our parents? Say that it is. How do you go about making an equal opportunity for them?

This question can be debate thoroughly and with outrageous claims of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but what I am going to argue here is that being poor can actually give you opportunities others do not have. Not only that but also that opportunities are not always a function of your income.

Take for example me and my friend who is currently in the Marines. Before he went to the Marines, he tried to be the bookworm type and go to college. He often found himself wondering out of the class room and not doing very well. Is this due to his upper lower class or lower middle class family? No. This is due to his personality. When me and him would hang out, there was no bicker between my family who was better off and his. Instead I learned a lot from him as I am sure he did with me. There was one opportunity that I noticed he got that I didn’t.

He drove a crappy car. Most people see this as a bad thing, but someone with the mind of my friend makes lemonade out of lemons, as cliche as that sounds. He took the time to understand his car, take it apart and put it back together again. While I was afraid to open the hood of my car because my father would flip if I broke anything. Maybe my point isn’t getting across clear enough but the fact that his car wasn’t worth as much and it was more simple of a design, he was able to explore his mechanical mind.

Now my friend is a mechanic for the Marines and makes a lot more money that I do. Sure for FDR or the Clintons this may not be the idea area for him. They would probably prefer him to be a lawyer, doctor, or dentist but that would be torture for my friend. My grandfather was the same way. He never wanted a desk job so why should we assume that those who do not or those who do not have desk jobs want them?

When I think of an equal opportunity I think of me being allowed to take the resources I have at hand and making the best of them. People often forget about that but this is exactly what the “American Dream” is all about.

~PCCapitalist

And who says the left isn’t full of socialists and communists?

Hat tip to the GMU CRs

Happy Memorial Day

Even though this is a government holiday, it does stand for all of those who have fought for freedom. We often forget that when we open are grills and spend time with our family. There are some wars that have been more justifiable than others but that is for another post on another day. When people sign up for the military it isn’t usually to suppress their own. Instead, our military has been one of the best in the world. We have defeated a dictator in Britain, fascism in Italy, Germany, and Japan. We also were in a Cold War for years against a Communist country and we toppled a dictatorship in the form of the Taliban. The military has a lot to be proud of and we have a lot to be proud of as Americans. This day should remind us of the freedoms that our soldiers fought for.

This is the oath of the military:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).”

Also fun fact it is also the Confederate Memorial Day in Virginia. Each state is different. Even though they lost and went against its ideals near the end we should remember them too. I have pretty extreme views against Lincoln but in a lot of ways the Confederates stood for more than just slavery but states rights. We often do not remember why states rights are important. They are so that we can choose different laws to live under.

~PCCapitalist

The government wants your fingerprints!

I recently saw this and will award Mr. Michael Chertoff the Economic Moron of the Week Award. I know this is not purely economics but its moronic:

“Recently, “Server in the Sky” — a proposed international database of the fingerprints of suspected criminals and terrorists to be shared among the U.S., U.K. and Canada — has ignited a firestorm of controversy. As have cavalier comments by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that fingerprints aren’t “personal data.””

Why doesn’t Chertoff think that this is personal data? This is an invasion of privacy! This is more Patriot Act like tactics.

After a while in order to fight dictators and totalitarian terrorists in a free country, they often use the same tools. Then it becomes a game of who really is the dictator? Another example was in the early part of the 20th century the Post Office would censor socialists. Now I do not agree with socialists one bit, but I believe censoring is one of their tools.

The rest is here.

~PCCapitalist

GMU Law in trouble

George Mason University is where I currently am going to be come an economist and hope to go for graduate school. At one point I wanted to go to law school and go to Mason’s. They have been ranked in the top tier. It ranks 38th in the top 100.

Now GMU Law is in trouble because it isn’t “diverse enough.” The American Bar Association has been threatening to do it since 2000. This from Connect2Mason.com:

“Of the entering students in 2000, 6.5 percent were minorities, according to a recent op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal. In 2002, 10.8 percent were minorities, which rose to 17.3 percent in 2003 and 19 percent in 2004. The article reported that this number just barely satisfied the ABA when the choice was made to give the law school reaccreditation in 2006 under the condition that “particular attention” would be paid to GMU’s efforts to expand diversity in the upcoming years.”

The ABA said that the school isn’t willing to participate in affirmative action programs. This to me is a great thing. I think it is good that GMU Law is actually doing something important like improving their school instead of trying to hard to get minorities.

The ABA should leave GMU Law alone and let GMU Law decide what is good for GMU Law.

Farm Subsidies must go!

But they aren’t anytime soon…