What do you mean no Helicopters and McNukes?

In usual fashion I have come across some inspiring material to write my own article on. I’ve been thinking recently about what the ends of a libertarian party or movement would or should be. In this blog I consider the means of getting there. I’m always pushing steps toward a libertarian society. These steps seem to never make any progress. I have always viewed the libertarian society as an idealist notion. I think to some degree its true. On the other hand, I feel like its entirely possible that a libertarian society is achievable. The problems are numerous and the solutions are few. One main problem and probably the biggest one is the lack of education of outsiders on the libertarian values and beliefs. People tend to misinterpret or misunderstand what libertarians stand for and what we want to achieve.

I’ve recently said on social media that I believe I’m in the minority of libertarians that believe that achieving the ultimate goal of a libertarian society will come instantly once it happens. I feel that many libertarians, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists think that once we overthrow the current government then we can just easily transition to that libertarian society that we all agree is the goal. I don’t believe its so easy or fast. I think there is a number of factors to consider about means and ends of libertarianism.

The first and foremost is that the way to change the government is to vote for politicians who hold the same beliefs, values and morals as libertarians.  We can all agree politicians of this caliber don’t exist right now with the exception of Rand Paul, maybe. After voting for Gary Johnson in two consecutive elections I have realized that we are going too big. (Nothing wrong with him, just a walking meme.) We need to find libertarian congresspeople. I know of 3 libertarian leaning congresspeople, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash. Once we can turn the Congress into a majority of libertarians then we can work on the white house.

The second factor is education like I mentioned before. A lot of people have misconceptions of libertarians. Even I used to subscribe to these common myths. For example: Libertarians are both Republican and Democrat because they support a little of each. It might be true that we hold similar positions but we are actually against both parties. The two main parties are a snake with two heads. They don’t care about you. They care about their interests and their money! We need to educate the masses on libertarianism. The essential thing is liberty and freedom. The government shouldn’t play much if any role in our everyday lives. The government doesn’t need to over regulate and get involved in everything we do. The government doesn’t need to tax our hard earned income. For over 100 years, the US government collected no income tax. Who will build the roads? Private corporations that need to ship things by truck. Businesses that need to drive around. My point is that if we can educate people then eventually will lead to more people accepting and more importantly voting for libertarians.

The third factor of the means is simply cohesive-ness among libertarians. We have to unify our ideas. I know we all agree on certain things. But we have to compromise on other things. Example: Abortion. One of the hottest button issues because there is no stasis for argument. Pro Life or Pro Choice? For me, I’m torn between both because choice is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Yet I’m also catholic so I can’t possibly support the killing of something that is alive. My position is Pro-Adoption. It gives a choice and saves the life of the baby. Also there are many parents out there who can’t have kids. My point here is that a compromise takes a little bit from each side and makes palatable to everyone. Compromise is something that our country was founded on. I strongly believe we should get back to that.

The forth factor is concerning the ends. I find it hilarious but helicopters and McNukes are a standard must have in any libertarian society. But lets all be honest its a little far fetched. I do believe that no taxes, open carry (guns), NAP and very small government are possible to have. I think we all have to be realistic about the ends. The ultimate goal is for everybody to live their life without the interference from government. But I think we miss the point that libertarian is also one of the most charitable types of societies. Its not fake charity like socialism and communism. In a libertarian society, you would give to the poor, give to the sick and give to government if you felt like it was worth it. Thats the wonderful thing about it, its your choice to give your money or not. Government is ineffective at helping people. But there is a million examples of where everyday people throw their support at something and get it done without government.

My conclusion is that we need to educate, vote, come together and be realistic about our ultimate goal of a libertarian society.  We can do it all once too. My inspiration was an article that basically said no more Libertarian party but we need a movement. In order to achieve a movement, we have to educate people on the benefits of joining this movement. We have to vote in politicians who reflect our positions. Its not going to be easy. The steps towards a libertarian society will be methodical. All I hope is that I see this libertarian society come to fruition before my time is up. I’m still young so I got hope.

Just remember kids, Taxation is Theft.

Thanks For Reading!



Economic Series Part 3: What is Gross Domestic Product?

Welcome to the third part of my economic series. This final part will explain what GDP is and why it is so often used as politicians go to economic figure of success or failure. Gross Domestic Product or GDP as I will call it by the acronym, is an economic indicator. It measures a very specific part of the economy in any given country. If you have not read parts ONE and TWO of this economic series I strongly suggest that you do. My first two parts of the series describe the arguments for and against minimum wage in part one. In part two, I  go over the basics of government budget and taxation. It’s important to recognize that economics is a very complex subject and many topics involved having an understanding of other topics. In this case, I think that GDP is definitely the most advanced of all the topics that I have covered thus far. In order to properly discuss GDP and the politics that usually surround it, I feel its necessary to explain how it come to be and what it involves.

The book that has inspired me to write on this topic and my primary source of information is called GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History by Diane Coyle. Coyle’s book gives a full rundown of everything GDP. I would strongly recommend it because this post won’t even cover 1/4 of what she does in this book. Coyle gives a simple word breakdown of GDP. Gross meaning not deducted as opposed to net (Her example was like net weight of a cereal box, it’s only the weight of the cereal without the packaging) Product meaning stuff made, and Domestic is simply at home.(Page 7) GDP is much more complex than the three simple words that make up its name. The history and founding of GDP begins at the start of World War II. However, the idea goes back throughout the ages.

One of the many controversies over GDP that still exist today was first explored by one of the greatest economic scholars to ever write. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. In his book, he went over some relevent facts of GDP. His point to paraphrase is this: The manufacturer that produces something with their labor creates value and adds it to the economy. The person who employs many menial servants grows poor while the person who employs many manufacturers grows rich. The point here being that Smith sees the production of goods as adding value to an economy. He sees the services of a servant or a service in general adds nothing. GDP has often not included services because it’s too hard to measure the true output of a teacher. Also the word “Product” in GDP lends itself to the production of goods not services. (Page 10)

GDP’s history comes out of collection of statistical data and economists. Colin Clark calculated the expenditures and national income of the United Kingdom. Clark based his work on a publication by Alfred Marshall who wrote Principals of Economics before the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt encourage more research and work on the national income and expenditures during the Great Depression. This led to Simon Kuznets to work with the National Bureau of Economic Research, which earned him a nobel prize. One of things that Kuznets brought up is an important facet of GDP. Kuznets thought that he was working to measure welfare rather than just output. GDP is often used to measure the welfare of any given country. However, because like I said previously, GDP is typically measured by the output of an economic. The problem of welfare and GDP is one of modern criticisms of GDP. Coyle dedicates two chapters to the subject of GDP and welfare. (Page 12-14)

I want to focus more on the particulars of GDP and how it’s calculated. Coyle covers this topic quite well. I want to save welfare and GDP for another post because it’s too much for this post. Coyle goes over the three different ways to measure and calculate GDP. She gives a two charts. One chart shows how these calculations are done. Since I don’t have the chart, I will just describe each way. The first way is a Value Added production. Value Added production adds up the Gross Output. The gross output is the all the sales made in an economy. The gross output excludes the inventory because it’s counted by the next category of intermediate inputs. Which stuff like staffing, inventory, and other things that businesses pay money for to make their business work. Finally you get to a number that tells you how much value added each industry in an economy.

The second way to calculate GDP is through Income (by type) approach. This approach uses a set of different incomes and expenditures to make final figure of Total Domestic Incomes earned. There are rental income, profits and proprietors’ income, Taxes on production and imports, Less: Subsidies, Interest and miscellaneous payments, and depreciation. These are the categories of the Income (by type) approach. The third way to calculate GDP is through Final Demand (or Expenditures) approach. This approach uses the sum of these categories to make up the final sales of domestic product to purchasers. The categories are the consumption of final goods and services by households; Investment in plant, equipment, and software; Government expenditures on good and services; and net exports of goods and services (export-import). No matter how you calculate GDP, the measurement always is trying measure how much an economy produces and what kind of income the country who benefits from it makes. (Page 25-26)

The most popular and most used method in modern times is the Expenditures approach. Coyle also goes over the equation along with an awesome chart. The equation simply is GDP= C+I+G+(X-M). The letters stand for Consumer Spending plus Investment plus government spending plus exports less imports. (Trade deficit/surplus). Coyle also tries to show some problems with the GDP equation which is mostly that GDP is not so simple. The categories have multiple sub-categories. There is a lot of gray area. The numbers can be shaky. However, in the end GDP is the most reliable measurement of economy. Coyle mentions other indicators which can help round out the welfare aspect and government impact. The awesome chart I was referring is a two circles. On the left side there is the word “Individuals” and on the right side there is “Business”. The top of the circles, have two words. On the bottom circle it says Expenditures, and on the top circle it says Goods and Services. In the lower two circles, the top one says Income and the bottom says Labor. (page 26-27)

The story is that Individuals and Businesses interact in two different ways. The circles represent the different ways. The bigger circle with Labor and Goods and Services basically shows that Individuals supply the labor for business. The Business supplies the good and services. This is basic economics, it shows a supply/demand for labor and good and services.  The smaller circle with Expenditures and Income show that Businesses supply the Individual with income and the Individual supplies the business with Expenditures. The vice-versa is also true. Businesses make income on the Individual’s expenditures. This is a simple economics lesson that can help you understand GDP. (Page 27)

GDP is an important facet of economic measurement of any given country. As Coyle notes in later chapters which this post won’t cover, that GDP is not accurate in second and third world countries because of faulty accounting and statistics. She also covers a great deal of debate over whether welfare should be measured by GDP or not. These are more complex questions than I really want to go. I think the point of this post is to say that GDP is important to understand. GDP is not a true measure of welfare. It’s the statistical measure of economic input and output. As an example, GDP measures the number of phones that Apple sells after the release of the Iphone 7. It doesn’t take into account the welfare of the people who buy those phones. GDP is also a political tool especially when it comes to arguing over the economy.

Moving away from Coyle’s book in some ways, I want to briefly discuss why politicians like to use GDP. I think that much of the political controversy surrounding the use of GDP comes from the myths of GDP. Many people don’t realize the history of GDP. The misunderstanding of what GDP represents. Many politicans including present candidates for President seem to think that GDP shows how well the economy doing or more often how bad it’s doing. However, the reality is that GDP can fluctuate just based on how you calculate it. One increase or decrease in any given category there could be a 1-2 percent fluctuation. Another important myth to dispel is that government spending actually helps GDP. The debate that surrounds government spending and its effect on the economy is prevalent.

This is where I want to end this post and this series for now. My last words is that government spending doesn’t necessary make for the best economic move. The problem with government spending is that the government is NOT a business. Government makes their money from taxpayers. Its mandatory, you can’t just not pay taxes. It also makes a problem with counting the statistics for GDP. The government doesn’t have a real income with the exception taxes. This means that when the government tries to invest in anything it only represents an expenditure. If you recall the chart, the point of an economy is a cycle of labor into good and services that make income provided by expenditures. One example, that I know the best is that of the spending on the military. Military spending has often been one of the biggest items on US government budget. The national debt is nearly 20 trillion dollars. Some scholars have estimated that 16 trillion of that was spent during the cold war on military research and wars. The way that the DOD (Department of Defense) and the government have gone about spending this money is the problem. The military contracts assigned to military contractors during these years were given without little scrutiny. Many of the biggest contractors were able to contracts with no competition. The contracts included very little accountability or responsiblity especially in regards to money spent.

The point being is that GDP has actually suffered since the Cold War. This mainly due to stagnant economy. I mentioned that GDP doesn’t measure services which now is the most prominent feature of our economy. The reckless spending and bad fiscal policy by the government has given us some unfortunate consequences. GDP will always be controversial because of its complexity. I believe that its important to understand how GDP works. If you understand economics and GDP then you can understand that fallacy that politicians try to push on us. For me, this topic is fairly new but I wanted to try to introduce a little bit of the controversy and facts of economics and GDP.

Thanks you for reading! Have a great day!



Coyle, Diane. GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History. Prinction University Press, 2014. 


Breaking the Blogging Silence

You probably didn’t notice but I took a pretty long break from writing on this blog. Most of the reason for my absence was not a lack of material to write. It was more of a lack of time to write about it. I was experimenting with podcast and I may get back to that eventually in the future. As for the political news, there isn’t much new to write about. The general election is strangely one-sided. Donald Trump has quite literally defeated himself by going into off message tangents and make it easy for voters to not pick him. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton of all people, is considered to be the lesser of two evils. The two candidates are both embattled with different shades of controversy. Hillary with her emails, and Trump with his bombastic commentary.

This post will be relatively short depending on how much I want to ramble on. This blog has been extremely focused on politics especially current events and happenings. I may still do some posts about that. I want to expand more into scholarly subjects. I want to discuss and try to solve problems in modern politics. I want to use my deep knowledge of history to help more people understand these problems. I have a lot of subjects that I want to go deeper into. I feel like there are subjects that I want to explore. One of those such areas is economics. Economics is not a subject that I studied heavily in either highschool or college. I sort of, taught myself about it. I took one college class on economics which gave me a basic understanding. Now I have been trying to read and research books that might help get even a better understanding.

The thing about economics is that it intersects with both history and politics. Much of the data collected on economic activity is from the past. The usefulness of economics in political debate and policy is based on this data. How you read the data and interpret it, is a big issue in political realms. I want to give you my readers an accurate interpretation of many subjects including economics, politics, civics, and history. I want to show how educating yourself on these subjects can be beneficial especially when it comes to election day. You will be able to weigh the candidates on something other than how they look, talk and how catchy their campaign slogan is.

In the future you can expect to see more posts, I hope if I can make time. Many of these new types of post will be a lot longer. I will most likely write them in a series covering one topic at a time. This blog is one of my favorite hobbies and unfortunately life has beckoned me to do other activities this past month or so. I can’t say it will be much better but I will attempt to commit even more time. In mean time, I would encourage you to look up Gary Johnson and consider giving him a shot. We have known and even scarier unknown qualities in Clinton and Trump, respectively. Think for yourself and make decisions based on logic and fairness.

I hope have the beginning of a new series starting as soon as this week but if not then definitely next week! Thank you for reading! Have a great day!

Hack-A-DNC: The Real Face of the Party

Unless you live under a rock or maybe if you just really don’t care about politics then there is a good chance you have heard about the DNC email hack. Just the latest series of events proving that Democrats aren’t exactly the ‘good people’ they try to portray. You honestly couldn’t write this stuff if you tried. The origins of the hack seem to be from some pro-Russian hacker group or the Russia government itself. The origin of the hacker doesn’t change the content. Of course, Hillary and her campaign has been too quick to point out that these Russia hackers are trying to help Trump. However, there is no proof that says that’s the case at all. It seems that the DNC and the Clinton were collaborating to help Clinton and discredit Bernie Sanders. Not only that but they also degraded and made awful statements about voters and Sanders’ staff. This post will not be very long because the facts are out, I just want to point out that this is real democratic party.

I already knew that the Democrats were not the party of inclusion and fairness. Just look at their policies. Every policy that they propose is just a scam to help the elites. They market to the poorest, stupidest, and most underpriviledged people so that they easily trick them! Even worse, they are racist cheaters. Let’s start with poor Bernie Sanders who was not only cheated but also derided for his religious beliefs. If you read any of my blog you probably know that I am no fan of Sanders policies or platform. However, I would never attack him because he is Jewish. I would never call his campaign manager an asshole. It’s one thing to disagree with somebody. It’s a totally different thing to absolutely assualt their character and person.

As if that wasn’t enough, the DNC and their crooked ChairDemon (I don’t care, Debbie you belong in jail) also rigged the election so that it was an guarentee that Hillary Clinton would win. That is the eptiome of corruption. I am not even surprised. People need to re-evaluate who their voting for. If you think Trump is bad, the DNC and Clinton make Trump look like a good choice. At least Trump won fair and square. The worst of all these emails besides the assualt on Bernie, is the racism and sexism. Just type in google, DNC leaked Racist emails. You can find a few juicy ones. Like calling the outreach to Latinos the “Taco Bowl Engagment.” No Trump didn’t say that, it was the DNC calling their biggest base of voters fucking Taco Bowls! Are people really going to fucking vote for these lowlife pieces of shit?? Honestly!

Someone please help me understand this…The Democratic Party is the Demoncratic Party. It didn’t stop there with the racism. They even made fun of a black woman’s name. I won’t even say it because its that terrible. But if you want to see it, then here it fucking is. The biggest piece of shit is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is the Queen of the this evil empire. She is the mastermind behind slamming Sanders and fostering racism and sexism. She is the same woman who resigned from the DNC in shame, then in no shame was hired by Hillary Clinton to work on her campaign. In my opinion, this whole campagin and convention should have been stopped immediately. Number 1: They cheated, so there should be a re-vote. Number 2: Bernie Sanders should sue them for harassment and slander. Number 3: The FBI needs to put both Hillary and Debbie in fucking jail.

So If I could impart you with just one piece of advice, don’t vote for those crooked, lying, racist, sexist, piece of shit people that call themselves Democrats. Never vote them for again because they are probably slandering you in their private emails.  They probably think your retarded for even wanting to vote for them. They know how bad your gonna get fucked. 

This being said, with all my french, You should seriously consider a third party candidate. I would recommend Gary Johnson. However, if your dog or neighbor makes a better candidate then by all means write them in.

#NeverHillary #NeverDemocrat

Thanks for reading and sorry for the swearing but I’m pissed as hell.


Protests: Are they effective?

In today’s news you see a lot of protests and riots over a variety of issues. Some of the protests have a point. While other protest seem to be just a waste of time. In light of the recent police oppression protests and Trump protests at the GOP Convention. I want to discuss briefly how these protests have points but in the end, they just aren’t that effective. One group behind these protests is the BlackLivesMatter group who say they are for protection of black lives. (Ironically, they only care about black lives if killed by white cops)  This group certainly has a right to protest but I think they are going about it the wrong way. They are inspiring domestic terrorism against police instead of peaceful change. An example of a successful protester for civil rights is Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. used certain methods and peaceful negotiations to get what he thought was equality for colored people. King  was arrested many times for peaceful resistance to unjust laws. He inspired people like Rose Parks to sit in the front of bus and break the social norm of racism. More importantly, King didn’t try to incite riots or violence. He went through more diplomatic means to achieve his ultimate goal. He made political connections with powerful people in the government. One of those people was Lyndon B. Johnson. From the time that Johnson was the senate majority leader under Kennedy to the Johnson’s time as President, King had Johnson as his ally.

John F Kennedy was also persuaded by Martin Luther King Jr. to consider passing civil rights legislation. It was never passed under Kennedy because of his unfortunate assassination in 1964. King worked closely with the new President, Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson had a knack for passing legislation through congress. He spent most of his political career in congress. He knew the Congress people well, and he knew process even better. So when King met with Johnson on multiple occasions before 1965, it turned out one of the most advance civil right laws to ever be passed in the US. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote and help shape most of what is known as the Voting rights Act. It was the first step towards equality for colored people. It took away the southern states ability to pass Jim Crow laws about voting.

Let’s fast forward to now, where black people still perceive racism. However, its a bit different than how King perceived it. Now many people see it as police oppression and systematic priviledge or underpriviledge. This is not to say that voter suppression still doesn’t take place. Unfortunately, the supreme court has overturned parts of the voting rights act. So my question is, does protesting the police really help the victims of this oppression? The answer for me is not really. Donald Trump is another controversial topic because of his candidancy for President. Trump has not been very low key about his intentions as President especially regarding things like illegal immigrants from Mexico, women, and others. So naturally people have been protesting Trump. Once again, do I think these protests are effective? No, I really don’t. Let me explain why.

The problems that people perceive with the police and Trump are real. It may not be real to everybody but real enough for people to protest them. In my opinion, the protests are great for raising awareness. However, they do no good to actually change the problems. The reason why they don’t change problems is because the protests are directed at the wrong people. For starters, Trump isn’t even president yet, he has no real legal power. So clearly protesting him won’t change anything because he knows that people will hate him. As for the police protests, lets remember who’s in charge of our police. The government, State and Local. In reality, the police only take orders from your top government officials. People like Mayors, Governors, Police Commissioners. The police are merely following their orders and training.

My point is that protesting these pawns in a grander scheme of government is not going to be the most effective way. So you might ask who should I direct my anger torwards?  If anything, you should direct torward elected and appointed government officials. They produced and enforced all these policies that may add to the perceived racism or systematic injustice. If you don’t realize already, the world is not run by normal everyday people like you and me. Its run by elites. Elites are not just rich or wealthy. Elites hold 90 percent of the wealth and 99 percent of the world power. Many elites are government officials or serve in the US Congress. There is a handful of rich families about 300 of them. These families control all politicians all over the world. Just look up illumati or 300 wealthiest families. Trust me, Elites run this planet.

Once you realize that elites are the true power holders, then you can see why protesting these lower level pawns is useless. If you want real change befriend someone with power in government who has influence. Martin Luther King Jr was able to do this and achieved some amazing things. There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. I think its better to not waste your time and talent on protesting two things that don’t really hold any power to change.

Thanks for reading! Make sure to subscribe and watch my podcast on my youtube channel: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog.

Remembering D-Day: The Beginning of the End

Today is June 6th, 2016. Approximately 72 years ago on June 6th, 1944, the United States started an invasion that would eventually end the war in Europe during World War 2. I want to quickly discuss the upcoming round of primaries before I talk about D-Day. Tomorrow marks the last big round of voting in the primaries. The outcome of New Jersey will likely be the decisive primary that will give Hillary Clinton the nomination. If you haven’t been keeping up on delegate count, Clinton is now  only 26 delegates away from winning the nomination. She needs 2383 delegates to win. She currently has 2357. unfortunately for Bernie and his fans there is a very slim chance for him to win. Barring any major shifts in superdelegates, it looks like Hillary will be the democratic nominee. Many people are still wondering if Hillary’s email scandal will disqualify her from the race. My personal thought is that because of how long this scandal has dragged on, and the fact that everyone in government sort of knew about it, she probably won’t be indicted anytime soon. unfortunately, her broad support from party officials and big money donors will make it harder for her to be pushed out.

That was my quick update on the current election, which you can expect a lot more posts about that in the future. I am looking forward to the debates between the two nominees. The clash of ideas and policies will create an interesting environment for conversation about the direction of the country. In the background of all that, we have all the skeletons that have been dredged up on each candidate. I can’t wait to see what happens. As I aforementioned in my first two sentences, today marks the 72nd anniversary of D-Day. To many people D-Day means almost nothing. If it does mean anything then its just a vague day that happened in World War 2 with beaches. D-Day is actually rather complex and interesting. D-Day was a code word invented by the Allies, namely the Commander of the European Theater: Dwight D. Eisenhower.  He was the mastermind behind the brilliant plan to free Europe from Hitler’s grip.

Instead of recounting the whole back story and everything about D-Day, I will just opt for the most important part. This post could in some way be related to my memorial day post. I want to take some time to honor those soldiers who fought in D-Day. I have read many accounts about landing on those beaches in Normandy. I have watched Saving Private Ryan countless times. (By the way I would recommend watching it, the accuracy of the opening scene is incredible, link here) The bravery, courage and honor that those men showed has not been matched in my opinion since it happened. Not only did they die for their country but they also saved all of Europe and the world. D-Day was the beginning of the end, a turning point.

D-Day was far from a perfect operation. The weather didn’t cooperate and it was actually delayed by nearly a week. The beauty of D-Day was the cooperation of the allies. The US provide most of the war material like tanks, guns, boats, ammo and men. However, the British were instrumental in the positioning of the troops, planes and supplies. D-Day was simple invasion, in terms of how the troops would land. The basic idea was to focus on a small swath of the French coast line with a mass of troops. This overwhelming force could then breakthrough the German defenses and start liberating Europe. I think one of the most interesting things is how the allies successfully deceived Germany about when and where the invasion would take place.

The Germans are well known for their propaganda  during World War 2. In fact, North Korea uses similar tactics with its people today. The Germans were not the only ones that were good at propaganda. The Allies using radio stations in German controlled areas leaked out inaccurate information about an possible attack. Hitler had realized that once the US was in the war after Pearl Harbor that an invasion was possible. However, Hitler thought that he would try to sway the Brits to become Allies with German then take on the US later. Despite the bombing of Britain for nearly 3 straight years due to the toughness of Winston Churchill. The Germans never did get the British to ally with them. Due to the Allied propaganda the Germans had no clue where the attack may take place. The propaganda mislead them into thinking it may be in the south of France or maybe in the north by Denmark or Finland.

The only problem with D-Day for the Nazi’s was that Hitler had just suffered a huge loss at the hands of the Russians. Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of Russia,  this went against an non-aggression pact signed before the war. The failed operation in Russia and huge loss of troops along with broken supply lines. At this time in 1944, the Germans were running low on troops, supplies like oil, ammunition, food. It just so happened that Eisenhower picked the right time to invade. The men that made D-Day so successful really changed the face of war. By the next year in 1945 around April, the allied troops reached Berlin.

D-Day created true heroes who saved the world from an evil dictator. It’s a remarkable event in American and World history. I would definitely recommend that you read about it for yourself. It’s such an interesting time period in history. It is one of my favorite times. The way that America handled itself during World War 2 was amazing. The after-effects of World War 2 got us where we are today. I know that if it wasn’t for the soldiers who fought in D-Day, I wouldn’t be able to write this blog. So I have to thank them for their service and their heroism. There isn’t too many World War 2 Vets still alive, so its important to remember what they went through.

Thanks for Reading!

Basic Income–A replacement to Socalism?

I was browsing around fivethirtyeight.com, one my favorite websites right now. I came across an article discussing the idea of basic income. The article itself details the journey of a man who devoted his career to studying such a measure. I would definitely recommend that you read the original article, right NOW. Now before I explain what basic income is and why it may be a viable replacement to socialism, I want to say that there is no replacement for free market capitalism. No matter how you look at it, free market capitalism is the most successful type of economy. Also if you read this blog on any sort of regular basis you will often find me ripping and shooting holes through socialists ideas and policies. The only thing I have against socialism is that it just does NOT work. You may think after I explain that I’m proposing an socialist policy, but I’m not. I am merely suggesting a completely re-thought social welfare policy that could actually eliminate some of the problems that socialism presents.

Basic Income as explain by this article on fivethirtyeight is an no-strings attached, government funded check to each citizen of certain amount per month or annually. Now in the article they don’t get into many specifics on who actually receives this basic income check. They only say that whether your rich or poor, you get a check. Sounds really crazy right? Why the hell do people like Donald Trump need a free check from our government? Won’t it deter people from working? At first, I had come up with many questions like these. But then I started to think about it in a more realistic way. Now, if the government was cut a check each month for each citizen then we would obviously have to cut some other sources of spending. Naturally, when you think of a free check from the government you think: Welfare. So what counts as welfare?

So as defined by the article, welfare includes old age, health, family, disability, housing and a few random others like food stamps, government funded services. Let’s say the US government would cut all welfare which according to this chart made with data from OECD (To read more click on it). The chart is shown below:


So as you can see the US spends about 700 billion dollars on welfare related expenses per month per capita. This is all taxpayer funded money. So now the questions that I need to answer are who receives this check and how much should it be? The article does offer some light on how much. A proposed Swiss Basic Income law had the amount set around 1700 dollars a month. As you can see that the Swiss spend a similar 650 billion or so on welfare also. So let’s say the US will set it at 2000 dollars per month. And based on US census data from 2014, I have estimated that there 244 million people above the age of 18. I feel like once your 18 you should entitled to basic income. If your under then you’re probably not responsible enough, it should reasonably match with the voting age.

So here is my estimation by somewhat rough numbers:

Basic Income: $2000

Population over 18: 244 million

Monthly cost of Basic Income: $488,000,000,000 billion

Monthly cost of welfare: 700 Billion

Savings by Government:$212,000,000,000 Billion dollars.

I believe that my numbers although rough can easily justify a basic income as a cost cutting and effective way to reduce welfare costs. Now I could be wrong about any number of things in my calculations. However, let’s just take with a grain of salt and say that this is how it would be. Let’s be honest that the government has too much power over us through welfare. The government programs are usually poorly managed and very costly. Also who knows the best way to help you if your in poverty? The government? Or YOU! I think that people honestly know what they need to survive. Now many skeptics including myself will still call bullshit on this whole thing. This: Won’t this just deter people from working?

Honestly, I can say that it might deter some. But those same people are the ones who don’t work now and are on welfare. So in reality that problem can’t be fixed by an basic income. However, I think the war on poverty thus far has failed. Lyndon B. Johnson started it in the mid 1960s and we have been trying to fight it ever since. Unfortunately, the government is pretty ineffective at providing the poor help. So what makes me think that this measure could work? I think that this measure could work because it provides people the freedom to do what they will do. Let me give you two different situations that would probably occur across the country.

First situation: John Doe is a mid-level manager of a fortune 500 company. He makes a decent salary of about 90,000 dollars a year. When a basic income proposal is passed, his income increases to 114,000. John decides that instead of buying a fancy new car or going on a shopping spree with his wife, that he will invest the money and save some for retirement.

Second Situation: Paul Smith is a construction worker who has been in and out of work. He makes enough to get by, about 45,000 dollars a year. When a basic income proposal is passed his income increases to 69,000 dollars a year. Paul decides that instead of saving that extra he would rather go to the bar and party. He also decides that a fancy new car is in order.

Obviously, people of all incomes will do different things with their basic income. I don’t think its necessary wrong to go out and spend all your basic income on cars and drinks at the bar. I think its fiscally irresponsible and maybe immature. However, it still stimulating the economy. I believe the greatest asset of a basic income is that it allows people the freedom to do whatever they want. It allows you the freedom to quit a job you don’t like without losing all your income. Let’s face it 24,000 dollars isn’t a lot but its better than nothing. It may increase productivity because people would spend time searching or improving themselves for the jobs they want to do. Just imagine as a parent, if you that extra 24 thousand you can afford to pay for your kids college education. Of course, many will argue “it doesn’t close the wealth gap”. You are right, but the point is not to close that gap. The closure of the wealth gap is not really possible, sorry to break it to you.

My conclusion is that basic income may be a better alternative to socialism. Basic income is almost definitely better than our current welfare system. If you think our current system is unfair, then here you go, there is nothing more fair then everybody getting a piece. Now is basic income a realistic political idea in America? That I can’t tell you. However, I can tell you that basic income is a form of a welfare that could replace the costly and expensive welfare system currently in place without restraining our economy. I am also sure that if income is weighed right by inflation and standard of living, then it could save us billions in welfare each month, trillions a year. Our national debt isn’t getting any smaller.

I know I didn’t talk about how taxes would be effected. I would assume it would come with a small flat tax or more likely be added to your income tax. I think because of freeloaders you would have to tax it, otherwise you have many taxpayers disappearing off the tax roll.

Thank you for reading! Let me know what you think!