Mark Regnerus's article "Say Yes. What Are You Waiting For?" 'proposed' (lol marriage pun, yes.) that people should get married at younger ages. According to Regnerus, "the economic benefits of pooling resources" outweigh the rhetoric that young marriages usually fail.
His argument quotes Proverbs: "two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work"
This all depends on the person. If you are using a Bible verse in an attempt to explain that young marriages can easily thrive, you must be forgetting who your audience is.
Most studies show that divorce rates increase if you're under 25. Why? Think of the majority of people who would get married early. Most of them are not doing it because it is "God's calling" for them. We do not know what people are being interviewed for these statistics but we can be almost certain that plenty of them are not following the Bible. We do not even know if they are Christians to begin with.
That being said, marriage is pointless in a pagan relationship because there is no moral standard to hold to and absolutely no reason to get along with your spouse! Marriages without God is like chewing bubblegum; when the flavor runs out you can just cram a different piece in.
So, if we are to disregard those marriages and focus on Christian marriages, we can discuss this without a butt-load of different variables.
In a God-fearing marriage, it should not matter whether or not your spouse makes you happy because you get your happiness from God! If you're grounded in your faith then when times are tough you won't divorce, you'll read your damn bible and figure out what you SHOULD do rather than what will make you "comfortable"! There are literally guidelines for this!
So, I agree with Mark in the sense that there should not be shame put upon those who wish to marry young if they're mature enough to put their spouses needs before their own. Age does not matter! It's the person
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Trump Trade
Shortly after Inauguration Day CATO Institute published an article stating that Trump wrongly demonizes free trade. His speech claims he wishes to put "America first" by means of economic nationalism but will that really help our economy?
The article can best be summed up in one sentence "For supporters of trade liberalization and an open economy, this speech was alarming. The U.S. economy is much stronger when people can trade freely across borders."
Trade is extremely important to our economy! It is illogical to make everything on your own if you can trade with other countries that have a comparative advantage over you in producing particular goods.
Plenty of people can tell you trade is crucial for bustling economies but what is the significance of "free" trade? Free trade is the policy of treating foreign goods and services no differently than domestic goods and services.
Economist Frédéric Bastiat explains free trade well in writing that "through this exchange, they (other countries) are compelled to let us share in advantages".
If we allow free trade to continue, it makes sense that other countries will do the same in return and neither one of us will be hindered from the exchanging of goods.
Most free trade is a foundation we clearly need in order for our capitalistic economy to thrive. After all, The United States is the world's number one consumer and second largest exporter.
The article can best be summed up in one sentence "For supporters of trade liberalization and an open economy, this speech was alarming. The U.S. economy is much stronger when people can trade freely across borders."
Trade is extremely important to our economy! It is illogical to make everything on your own if you can trade with other countries that have a comparative advantage over you in producing particular goods.
Plenty of people can tell you trade is crucial for bustling economies but what is the significance of "free" trade? Free trade is the policy of treating foreign goods and services no differently than domestic goods and services. Economist Frédéric Bastiat explains free trade well in writing that "through this exchange, they (other countries) are compelled to let us share in advantages".
If we allow free trade to continue, it makes sense that other countries will do the same in return and neither one of us will be hindered from the exchanging of goods.
Most free trade is a foundation we clearly need in order for our capitalistic economy to thrive. After all, The United States is the world's number one consumer and second largest exporter.
The concern of those in support of the liberalization of free trade is the rhetoric that Trump is a protectionist, meaning he will discriminate against foreign goods and services.
How is it that Trump, the executive of over 500 successful companies appears to oppose free trade? Is he not the very picture of capitalism? If so, why does he propose a plan that will obstruct it? The truth is there is more to Trump's plan than meets the eye.
NAFTA is described by Trump as a horrible trade deal because it unfairly favors Mexico. Not only does NAFTA eliminate 50% of Mexico's trade tariffs, it also allows Mexico to not abide by America's safety legislation. This is when the deal becomes unfair to the United States.
The problem with Mexico not having to follow our legislation rules is it puts the U.S. at a comparative disadvantage in trade.
For example, Ford is an American company that is manufacturing cars in Mexico. If there is a bid between the U.S. and Mexico for who gets to export those cars Mexico will win the bid because they do not have to pay for the same safety precautions that Americans do.
As a result, instead of manufacturing in America, our companies are moving their business to other countries because, by not following our safety rules, they can make more money. The problem is this leaves us with lower quality merchandise and less income for our economy.
Think of the situation as basketball. If the guest team does not have to follow all the rules the home team does (pretend they can double dribble), the guest has an unfair advantage and will beat the home team. This does not mean the guest is better, it means they are not playing by the rules they should.
Trump does not wish to put an end to free trade, however, he won't settle for the short end of the stick we are getting with these trade deals. His plan is to renegotiate NAFTA and abolish it only if necessary.
Concepts such as trade are more sophisticated than they appear on TV. Trump seems to be demonizing free trade while in reality, he wants to remove favoritism of other countries and make trade comparatively competitive.
NAFTA is described by Trump as a horrible trade deal because it unfairly favors Mexico. Not only does NAFTA eliminate 50% of Mexico's trade tariffs, it also allows Mexico to not abide by America's safety legislation. This is when the deal becomes unfair to the United States.
The problem with Mexico not having to follow our legislation rules is it puts the U.S. at a comparative disadvantage in trade.
For example, Ford is an American company that is manufacturing cars in Mexico. If there is a bid between the U.S. and Mexico for who gets to export those cars Mexico will win the bid because they do not have to pay for the same safety precautions that Americans do.
As a result, instead of manufacturing in America, our companies are moving their business to other countries because, by not following our safety rules, they can make more money. The problem is this leaves us with lower quality merchandise and less income for our economy.
Think of the situation as basketball. If the guest team does not have to follow all the rules the home team does (pretend they can double dribble), the guest has an unfair advantage and will beat the home team. This does not mean the guest is better, it means they are not playing by the rules they should.
Trump does not wish to put an end to free trade, however, he won't settle for the short end of the stick we are getting with these trade deals. His plan is to renegotiate NAFTA and abolish it only if necessary.
Concepts such as trade are more sophisticated than they appear on TV. Trump seems to be demonizing free trade while in reality, he wants to remove favoritism of other countries and make trade comparatively competitive.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Moral Judgement of Snowflakes
What a thrill this Inauguration day was! Attending school on January 20th did not stop me from streaming Trump's inaugural address mid-class on my phone. There has been so much build-up to this moment, this being my first time paying close attention to a presidential race.
It was nice to see Hillary Clinton attend the ceremony not as Trump's former
running mate, but as a former first lady. The transition of power is definitely getting smoother which means democracy works!
What struck me as odd, however, is the refusal of so many to attend the inauguration. Democratic representatives from Georgia, California, Texas, Minnesota, Tennessee, New York, Oregon, and Arizona refused to involve themselves with Trump as well as entertainers and designers.
Sophie Theallet, the first designer to make a formal declaration of refusal to associate herself with Trump's first lady, Melania declares:
"Whether to associate with him (Trump) has become a moral question. Performing during his inauguration, marching in his parade and attending his swearing-in ceremony are all decisions that have caused personal and public soul-searching for people in the public eye."
It is not liberal's exclusion of all things Trump that strike me as odd. The real conundrum is their reasoning for not collaborating with him. In this case, the designer calls it a "moral question" rather than a question of business. My response is: by what moral standard?
To liberals, what makes Trump untouchable but Obama "one of the best presidents ever"? We live in a world where people praise someone who supports the murder of unborn babies yet chastises someone who calls Rosie O'Donnell "fat".
If your standards are based on your own moral judgments alone with no foundation, how can you possibly make reasonable decisions? The Bible shows Christians that God sets moral standards, not fallible me.
Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?
This is not to say Trump is infallible because obviously, no man is. I am simply pointing out that there is absolutely no moral justification to attend Obama's inauguration but remain absent at Trump's.
Let the rhetoric of the new president not distract us from the actual events that took place at the U.S. Capitol this Friday. As Trump aptly observed in his inaugural address, "What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."
Trump, a successful millionaire businessman, did not become president just for kicks. He actually has a plan to fix what he sees as a breaking system which is America. Mid-speech he even claims "I will fight for you with every breath in my body -- and I will never, ever let you down."
Time will tell whether or not his tall orders will be fulfilled. However, it is commendable to see that our new president seems more active than our last in correcting injustices for the middle class. Trump is for America in his unique way and determining how much you like him based on your feelings is ridiculous.
It was nice to see Hillary Clinton attend the ceremony not as Trump's former
running mate, but as a former first lady. The transition of power is definitely getting smoother which means democracy works!
What struck me as odd, however, is the refusal of so many to attend the inauguration. Democratic representatives from Georgia, California, Texas, Minnesota, Tennessee, New York, Oregon, and Arizona refused to involve themselves with Trump as well as entertainers and designers.
Sophie Theallet, the first designer to make a formal declaration of refusal to associate herself with Trump's first lady, Melania declares:
"Whether to associate with him (Trump) has become a moral question. Performing during his inauguration, marching in his parade and attending his swearing-in ceremony are all decisions that have caused personal and public soul-searching for people in the public eye."
It is not liberal's exclusion of all things Trump that strike me as odd. The real conundrum is their reasoning for not collaborating with him. In this case, the designer calls it a "moral question" rather than a question of business. My response is: by what moral standard?
To liberals, what makes Trump untouchable but Obama "one of the best presidents ever"? We live in a world where people praise someone who supports the murder of unborn babies yet chastises someone who calls Rosie O'Donnell "fat".
If your standards are based on your own moral judgments alone with no foundation, how can you possibly make reasonable decisions? The Bible shows Christians that God sets moral standards, not fallible me.
Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?
This is not to say Trump is infallible because obviously, no man is. I am simply pointing out that there is absolutely no moral justification to attend Obama's inauguration but remain absent at Trump's.
Let the rhetoric of the new president not distract us from the actual events that took place at the U.S. Capitol this Friday. As Trump aptly observed in his inaugural address, "What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."
Trump, a successful millionaire businessman, did not become president just for kicks. He actually has a plan to fix what he sees as a breaking system which is America. Mid-speech he even claims "I will fight for you with every breath in my body -- and I will never, ever let you down."
Time will tell whether or not his tall orders will be fulfilled. However, it is commendable to see that our new president seems more active than our last in correcting injustices for the middle class. Trump is for America in his unique way and determining how much you like him based on your feelings is ridiculous.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Being Driven Up A Wall
If the president-elect upholds his new plans and policies, the economy can be dramatically altered. How will the economy be affected in regards to building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border? After extensive research on this topic, I have come to the conclusion that news reporters and politician's speeches will not help me an ounce with my blog.
When asked about how a giant wall may affect the economy, a CNN reporter will most likely give an extensive, drawn out rant on how building a wall is "racist". At the same time, someone on FOX news might be squawking about how illegals should not be living in the United States.
These arguments, although sensible if presented with direction, are advertised in aimless ways and do not elaborate on the physical effects of a wall.
This is Trump's plan we are discussing. He is not stepping into the presidency not as a politician, but rather as a business tycoon. As a result, this leaves me to eminently believe he is simply not considering those less concrete factors. Think of him as someone who is willing to accomplish a task no matter what, like Shrek.
So, let us take a look at the raw details of building a wall.
Trump has estimated that the wall's cost will range from $15 billion to $25 billion. According to the plan, the wall will be paid for by Mexico. Some may call this extreme but as a savvy businessman, Trump knows ways to cover these expenses.
Journalist Katie Kieffer states that "every year, Mexicans working in the U.S. send at least $20 billion back to Mexico in the form of remittances, placing a huge drain on our economy. Through a combination of legal and procedural challenges, Trump could impound such remittances." This would cover the expense of the wall in a little over a year!
Many propose that a deportation of undocumented immigrants will leave a strain on the economy due to a sharp decrease in taxes being paid to the U.S. In reality, federal government data shows that "while roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens."
Not only that but approximately $67 billion dollars are spent on welfare, food assistance programs, Medicaid, and education alone for just illegal immigrants and "anchor babies".
Whether or not the wall will prevail is debatable. Assuming it will work, the question we must ask ourselves is "does the gain outweigh the cost?" The answer is yes. America gives more than it gets from those who come live here against the law. It is time to stop harboring criminals and start allowing those who wish to improve their lives as well as our economy across our boarders legally.
Sources:
www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.htm
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
http://tinyurl.com/zob77
http://transcripts.cnn.com
When asked about how a giant wall may affect the economy, a CNN reporter will most likely give an extensive, drawn out rant on how building a wall is "racist". At the same time, someone on FOX news might be squawking about how illegals should not be living in the United States.
These arguments, although sensible if presented with direction, are advertised in aimless ways and do not elaborate on the physical effects of a wall.
This is Trump's plan we are discussing. He is not stepping into the presidency not as a politician, but rather as a business tycoon. As a result, this leaves me to eminently believe he is simply not considering those less concrete factors. Think of him as someone who is willing to accomplish a task no matter what, like Shrek.
So, let us take a look at the raw details of building a wall.
Trump has estimated that the wall's cost will range from $15 billion to $25 billion. According to the plan, the wall will be paid for by Mexico. Some may call this extreme but as a savvy businessman, Trump knows ways to cover these expenses.
Journalist Katie Kieffer states that "every year, Mexicans working in the U.S. send at least $20 billion back to Mexico in the form of remittances, placing a huge drain on our economy. Through a combination of legal and procedural challenges, Trump could impound such remittances." This would cover the expense of the wall in a little over a year!
Many propose that a deportation of undocumented immigrants will leave a strain on the economy due to a sharp decrease in taxes being paid to the U.S. In reality, federal government data shows that "while roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens."
Not only that but approximately $67 billion dollars are spent on welfare, food assistance programs, Medicaid, and education alone for just illegal immigrants and "anchor babies".
Whether or not the wall will prevail is debatable. Assuming it will work, the question we must ask ourselves is "does the gain outweigh the cost?" The answer is yes. America gives more than it gets from those who come live here against the law. It is time to stop harboring criminals and start allowing those who wish to improve their lives as well as our economy across our boarders legally.
Sources:
www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.htm
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
http://tinyurl.com/zob77
http://transcripts.cnn.com
Saturday, January 7, 2017
Colossal California?
Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics, wrote an article about America's GDP. Perry's composition addresses specifically, U.S. states' GDPs, which he presents as massive, considering they are compared to entire countries!
Mark Perry reveals that the state of California generates the highest GDP with $2,458,535 (in million USDs), beating France's $2,241,560 (also in million USDs). It is for this reason that I will be focusing on California for this blog.
How is it that California alone bests the entire country of France in regards to GDP? I've compiled a list of several factors that increase the GDP of California.
1. California is enormous.
CA has the highest population of all the states and is the 3rd largest by area. California's population is about 39 million, almost 2/3 that of France.
2. California is the home of Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley harbors business and technology. This includes major software companies such as Sony, Google, and Yahoo!
3.California has a major agricultural base.
Netstate's statistic show that "California grows over 200 different crops, some of which are grown nowhere else in the nation." This state is so clearly rooted in agriculture, even my neighbor sells rice to Japan! California also ranks second in the nation in livestock produce.
4.Hollywood, baby!
This one is obvious. This entertainment industry is worth billions.
.jpg/1280px-Hollywood_Sign_(Zuschnitt).jpg)
5.Rebates.
The government giving California money can raise its GDP. Since the drought, rebates have been given out to those in CA willing to change their landscaping and household appliances to "save precious water today and invest in a more sustainable future" - Governor Edmund Brown. Geez. That sounds like a line from Rango or Holes.
The average American works 40 hours a week while the average Frenchman works 35 hours a week.
As a Californian, I admit to feeling a pinch of pride learning about our economic status. However, I noticed a major GDP lowering factor not taken into account: debt.
Growth is what tends to display a bustling economy. GDP alone does not determine the growth of a state/nation. For example, China claimed to have a growth rate of 12%. It was later discovered that gigantic buildings were constructed, completely unoccupied. This only gave an illusion of economic growth.
As vacancy reveals a lack of growth, debt reveals a lower GDP. Debt can take the form of an unfunded liability. For example, an unpaid retirement would reduce the GDP. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that California has "$400 billion in unfunded liabilities and debt from public pensions, retiree health care, and bonds".
There is no doubt that California has an extensive economy. Although, considering its debt, is it still monstrous enough to be compared to the entire country of France? Your comments are welcome. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)