The Chains of Debt

The lure of easy money now and a payment date that seems far away into the future is quietly but efficiently gaining ground in the war for the souls of men. That great dungeon master, debt, is binding more and more people to a life of slavery every day. The debt of individuals, companies, and governments alike is reaching staggering levels.

In October of 2004, USA Today reported that $84,454 is the average household's personal debt and $473,456 is the average household's share of government debt, including Medicare and Social Security. In Fiscal Year 2005 alone the US federal government accrued $352.3 billion in interest on outstanding debt! That's over $1000 of interest for every man, woman, and child in this entire country.

Debt can be a crushing force, robbing us of our freedoms to do that which we please, and chaining us to our obligations. The following is a story from a Yahoo Finance article:

"It took William R. Love a full decade to get through college, mostly because he kept quitting to make what money he could at places like Burger King and Friendly's Ice Cream. Then, when he finally graduated from Rochester Institute of Technology in 2002, he couldn't find a decent job. His wife, Jessica, pressured him to take whatever he could find, and eventually he did. But he begrudged her; she was disappointed in him. A year later their marriage collapsed.

Now, at age 31, he is about to finish his master's degree in business at RIT. William is charming and highly capable and has lots of ideas about what he might do. He thought of moving to Chicago, a city he regards as full of promise. But he's realizing that to secure the $70,000-a-year job he hopes for, he has to be willing to go pretty much anywhere. He would, though, like to stay within driving distance of his parents, who live in rural Pennsylvania; money for plane tickets home may be hard to come by. William knows he will have to live frugally for years so that he can pay off the $71,000 he owes in student loans and the $40,000 balance on his credit cards.

William lives with his girlfriend, Savita Thakur, who is a 28-year-old technical writer and part-time student in the same MBA program. But he won't be in a position to get married, have children, or buy a house for a long, long while. 'I have to meet my financial goals to pursue my career properly. I can't take on more debt and do that,' he says. In this, he is not alone: Fourteen percent of graduates said in 2002 that they had delayed marriage because of their loan obligations, compared with 9% in 1987. (Young and Broke: Your Money - Yahoo! Finance)"

Like William, many have crushing levels of debt, which forces them to make choices they wouldn't normally make if they could avoid them. In this case, he and his girlfriend are putting off marriage, children, and a house because of the debt. Are these people really free to do what they wish? Not really. They are essentially locked away in a prison of their own making, performing slave labor for those who get rich off their interest payments. The lenders are the masters, the debtors are the slaves. Debt is a form of bondage. We think we own things, but in reality, our things own us.

I dread the grave consequences that, I fear, must come to pass when the already crushing weight of all this personal, corporate, and governmental debt comes crashing down on all of us. The great economic and personal tragedy that will result will have horrible effects upon society as we know it. The great stock market crash of 1929 was precipitated by high levels of debt in stocks. I fear that the high levels of debt in life will bring an economic crash the likes of which we have never seen before. My advice: Get out of as much debt as possible, as soon as possible, and start putting away a year's worth of food and emergency supplies (as we already should be doing).

Minimum Wage

The government regulates the labor market by setting a minimum wage that firms must pay their workers. So is a minimum wage worth it? It has the same effect as a price floor on a product. If the equilibrium wage is higher than the minimum wage (price floor), then the minimum wage has no discernable effect on the market, since the equilibrium point will be above the minimum wage. If the equilibrium wage is below the minimum wage, however, then there will be a surplus of labor: at the artificially high minimum wage, demand for labor is lower than supply, meaning that there will be unemployment (surpluses of labor). In this situation, not every worker who is willing to work for the minimum wage will be able to find a firm who wants to hire them.

There are strong arguments for either side. On one hand, if the minimum wage were removed, there might be lower unemployment, but workers might not make enough money to support themselves and their families. On the other hand, with the minimum wage in place, the employed are able to make more money, but many more workers are forced into unemployment and forced to take welfare, while making no contribution towards national productivity.

Whom does the minimum wage hurt the most? Firms will always want skilled workers who can make large contributions to productivity. When the minimum wage is installed, however, it is the least productive workers who are cut from payrolls first. The skilled workers will keep their jobs, perhaps even with higher pay; but the unskilled workers, because their marginal revenue product is lower than the new minimum wage, will be unemployed. The irony of the situation is that most people who advocate a higher minimum wage are hoping to help out the workers at the bottom of the ladder, when in reality, a higher minimum wage could very well put those workers out of a job.

My Opinion: The government should not be telling people what they can and cannot pay an employee. Let the market forces work it out without installing artificial price floors.

Federal Pork on its way to Utah

"OREM, Utah (AP) -- A section of Alpine Loop would get a $2 million study in a federal spending bill agreed to by House and Senate negotiators on Friday.

The bill would bring $21 million in federal spending to Utah, and Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said that $6.3 million of that is for his 3rd district, which covers parts of central and western Utah.

The House passed the measure 392-31. If approved by the Senate and signed by President Bush, it would bring:

-- $600,000 to Provo for the city's new performing arts center,

-- $500,000 to Orem to widen Geneva Road from 1600 North to University Parkway

-- $200,000 to Eagle Mountain for community development and park improvements."



Now, as much as I like freebies, this is one I'd rather not be getting (not least of all because it isn't actually a freebie). I don't like the idea of every American's tax dollars paying for a road that only we in this area use. And I really don't like the idea of every American's tax dollars paying for a performing arts center in Provo and for "community development and park improvements" in Eagle mountain.

The sad part is that this is exactly the kind of government spending that happens all over the place all the time. My tax dollars are probably paying for some performing arts center in Iowa and a bunch of parks in California. These aren't things I will ever use, so why should I pay for them? Conversely, the people of Iowa and California won't ever be using the parks in Eagle Mountain or the performing arts center in Provo, so why should they pay for them?

The underlying issue really is, why are people being forced to pay for these services at all unless they are actually using them? Should the government be allowed to essentially steal money from people to pay for these things? Why can't these things be paid for directly by those who use them? Why does the government have to decide which services we the people "need" and should all be forced to pay for?

Sadly, the answers to those questions are probably too simple, which is why the government and the people of this country can't figure them out.

Socialist Mayor Rocky Anderson Proposing Letting Fuel Efficient Cars Park for Free

"[Salt Lake City] Mayor Rocky Anderson is pushing an ordinance to allow drivers of alternative-fuel, fuel-efficient and low-polluting vehicles to park free at all city metered parking."

This is insane. Here we go again trying to use the government to legislate morality. Hmmmm... I think pollution is bad and so I think I am going to try to force people to pollute less by making them pay more for parking if they don't. Never mind that the next guy has to pay for that spot and he pays just the same in taxes every year as the guy who runs that hybrid.

This is essentially a fine for people who don't buy a certain type of legal vehicle. This is also another scoot closer to socialism. The goverment needs to control less, not more. Let the people keep their freedoms, don't take them away under the banner of "saving the world" from itself.

55-Year Prison Sentence For Dope Dealing

Due to the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, Weldon Angelos (a 25 year-old father of 2), has been sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling drugs while in posession of a gun. Many call the sentence extremely harsh, and even the judge who had to hand down this sentence said that it was, "cruel, unjust, and even irrational."

I have always advocated stiff penalties for crime. Yet, even I agree that in this case a 55 year prison term for this offense (in which the gun was not even used, but was present) is probably much too harsh.

We have a problem in this country. Or sentencing guidelines are too complicated, and in some cases flawed. What's worse, people who get sentenced to a long prison term often get out much earlier due to things such as overcrowding. We need to come up with simple, fair, and enforceable prison sentencing guidelines. Someone should be sentenced to an exact amount of time, and good behavior should be able to get them out a little earlier, but not a lot.

When you go to the grocery store, do you see a price tag that says "$5.99 - $15.99" on anything? Of course not! And do you also think that you'll be able to take it to the checkout stand and have a good chance of only paying $2.99 for it? Not a chance. Each crime statute should have a specific sentence. Mathematical modifiers should be tacked on for repeated offenses. Good behavior should only be able to get you out of 10% of your sentence, at the most. For a 5 year-term that is a whole 6 months. If you're convicted to 5 years in prison, you should spend 5 years in prison (minus up to 10% for good behavior), not 2 years, not 5 to 15 years. What kind of message are we sending? And what kind of an unfair system are we sponsoring here that can reward people because too many others have committed crimes and so there isn't enough room in the jail for them?

Medicine for "Addicted" Gamblers?

There are aparently many people who claim that their gambling habit is so bad that they can't possibly stop on their own. And even worse, they claim it is not their fault, that they are somehow chemically difficient in a way that keeps them addicted. Now, while I believe that certain people are more predisposed to some types of behavior than others, I don't believe that anyone has truly lost their freedom to choose whether or not they gamble.

Let's say for a moment that someone was chemically difficient, to the point where they truly cannot stop themselves from gambling. Why go to work? Isn't it easier to commit crimes to get more money faster and for free rather than going to work? Why don't they just mug the first guy they see? If you look at a person who actually is chemically altered to where they can't control themselves anymore, such as a person who is very high on certain illegal narcotics, they truly act like maniacs. Many police officers around the country can attest to that. They made the active choice to take the drugs in the first place, which then took away their freedom to make choices while they were high. And while they are high they don't care about anything else, which then makes them very dangerous as they tend to hurt anyone around them to get more drugs. This is why they are arrested in such a state and why narcotics are illegal.

So if some people can truly be chemically altered by gambling, then shouldn't it be illegal too? And shouldn't these people be locked up long enough to go through the gambling withdrawal symptoms, just like a druggie? I mean, really, if they're really chemically altered then they could just mug someone or kill someone so they could have more money to gamble. But, we don't do that, which I am glad for. The reason? These people aren't really chemically altered so they can't stop gambling. It is simply a lack of personal control. They do not have the personal fortitude to decide to stop. They get a rush from it just like a junkie does from drugs, or a runner gets from adrenaline, or some other regular person gets from eating a certain food.

Let's not take every instance of people who don't want to change their lives bad enough to do so, and turn it into a clinically diagnosed disease and then try to come up with a medicine to fix it. Let's encourage personal responsability to both the gamblers, the casinos, and the institution that lends money to gamblers. Let's not just throw taxpayers' money at research and an attempt for a "cure" when really all we're doing is making Joe Taxpayer pay for people's gambling habits. This is a land of freedoms, and personal choices, and (less and less) personal responsability. Let's take some and quit passing the buck.

Highway Problem & Solution

Almost 2 months ago I wrote about all the pork in huge highway spending bill. Today I want to continue the discussion on that topic and explore a great solution made possible by technology.

Why is congestion so bad on today's freeways? That seems like a no brainer, right? Too many cars and not enough road. So defining the problem seems relatively simple. But, I assure you that it is not that easy. The deper questions of "Why are there so many cars on the road at a given time?" and "Why haven't the recent higher gas prices done anything to curb that?" are still out there to be answered.

The deep down reason that there are still so many cars on the road is that driving is too cheap, especially at certain times. Don't believe me? Let's look at just one instance of how this works in our lives. Why is a matinee movie cheaper than an evening? Because there is a much higher demand in the evening, so theaters can charge more. Some people who are cost conscious will go to the matinee, which wouldn't have done so before, smoothing out some of the congestion. If matinees were even cheaper, or evening shows more expensive, there would be an even bigger move of people to matinee movies.

One economist gave this example: "Try this thought exercise: Imagine that we operated our public golf courses like we operate our public roads. We would charge all taxpayers to help build and operate the course, regardless of how often they play golf -- or even if they don't play at all. Then we would charge very little to play and, most important, all golfers could tee off whenever they showed up. Would it be a little too crowded at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday when 127 golfers tried to tee up their drivers? You bet. We'd soon be reading about "golf rage," which would be particularly dangerous given all the swinging clubs."

The way we allow government to run the roads is very similar. It always costs the same, no matter when you drive, and it is relatively cheap. Many will groan when they hear that driving is cheap as they are spending $3 per gallon on gas. Look at Europe and you'll see they spend at least twice as much on gas. Why? Mostly because of taxes which build the infrastructure. We pay about 25% of the price of gas in taxes while they pay 75% in taxes. And yet, our taxes and user fees (auto registration, fees, and taxes) don't even cover the full cost of road construction and maintenence.

Thanks to technology, we can now increase and decrease the price of a highway as the traffic on that highway increases and decreases. I envision a system with some aspects of the I-15 FastTrak in San Diego. To ride on the freeways a person must buy or rent a small, device mounted on the dash of their car. Upon entering the freeway system, the device signals to a scanner that you are entering, and the system picks up your point of entry. Upon leaving the freeway it does the same thing, but marks it as your point of exit. Sounds like a regular old toll-road, doesn't it?

Well, here's where it gets different. The price you will pay to be on the freeway is dependent on the amout of traffic on that part of the freeway. So, a person may pay as low as 1 cent per mile if the traffic is very light. But they may also pay as much as 10 cents a mile if their section of freeway is packed with traffic. There would be sensors to determine traffic density, and electronic signs on all entrances and all along the freeway to tell you what the current rate in that area is. In addition, your vehicle could be weighed while getting on the system and be given a weight modifier. An average car would have a modifier of 1, which is normal. A heavy car or large car might have a modifier of 1.15, reflecting its increased wear and tear on a road, and a small car might have a modifier of .85, reflecting its less-than-average wear and tear on a road surface.

Paying higher prices to drive when it is congested will encourage people to drive at different times, take alternate routes, consolidate trips, carpool, take mass transit, and live in places where they have to drive less. It is much better than our current system of paying for everyone to cause congestion.

Ariana Christine

Our daughter turns 8 weeks old today. With all the negative things I see around the world today, it is a wonderful feeling to be able to look at her and think about all the good things in life. I am probably biased, but I think she's a pretty cute baby.

She likes to look at the ceiling fans. She likes to look at the wooden slats on our headboard. She sometimes sticks her tounge out a little when she's concentrating (just like her Dad). She laughs in her sleep, and sometimes wakes herself up doing so.

Family is the most amazing, uplifting, and supportive thing in the world if we allow it to be. Families are like small, independent support systems. They are the building block of a good society when they are whole and functional. Prophets and Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ have stated unequivocally that, “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.”

Backpack harnesses pedestrian power

(CNN) -- Mobile phone users or iPod addicts could soon be spared the hassle of having to recharge batteries by a backpack that converts energy from walking into electricity.

By harnessing the backpack's up-and-down motion, researchers say the device is capable of generating more than seven watts -- more than enough energy to power several portable devices at once.

Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania devised the technology after being asked by the U.S. military to come up with a light rechargeable battery that could be used by troops one the battlefield.

Soldiers currently carry up to 20 lbs in spare batteries to power high-tech equipment such as global positioning systems and night vision goggles.

But Professor Larry Rome, who led the research, said the technology could benefit anyone who needed "power on the go."
Details of the "Suspended-load Backpack" are revealed in the latest edition of the journal Science.

"As efficient as batteries have gotten, they still tend to be heavy. Field researchers, for example, have to carry many replacement batteries to power their equipment, which take up a lot of weight and space in the pack," said Rome.

"The Suspended-load Backpack could help anyone with a need for power on the go, including researchers, soldiers, disaster relief-workers or someone just looking to keep a mobile phone charged during a long trek."

The backpack consists of bag suspended from a fixed frame by vertical springs. As the bag is moved up and down by the wearer's walking motion it creates enough mechanical energy to drive a generator mounted on the frame.

Portable devices such as mobile phones typically require less than one watt, but by carrying loads of 40-80 lbs, the research team were able to generate more than seven times as much power.

Instead of carrying extra batteries, Rome said wearers could compensate for carrying a heavier load by packing high-energy snacks.

"Metabolically speaking, we've found this to be much cheaper than we anticipated. The energy you exert could be offset by carrying an extra snack, which is nothing compared to weight of extra batteries," said Rome said.

"Pound for pound, food contains about 100-fold more energy than batteries."

Education Part 1: The "Traditional" School Year

This is the first in a series of several written opinions addressing the subject of education in America.

While I am a HUGE believer in a private system of education as opposed to a socialized (public) system, I also realize that there is too much ignorance and greed in America for such a system to ever be put into place. Most people are unaware that one of the main tenets of the communist system was to have a public school system. As such, the government can to some degree have control over what is being taught and what the children are being brainwashed into. But today I don't want to talk about why a private system would be better. I want to talk about practical solutions that could be applied to improve today's socialized American school system.

One of the main obstacles to learning is the "traditional" school year that gives kids and teachers a 3-month summer holiday. Children in most industrialized countries go to school more days per year and more hours per day than those in America. Most American children are required to go to school 180 days a year, and spend about 5 hours a day in an actual classroom. And we wonder why the rest of the world is catching or passing us in education.

First, the problems with this system. Out of about 250 business days per year, only 180 at most are days that kids are in school. That's about 72% of possible business days. What a waste of taxpayer money to let school buildings go to waste for more than a quarter of the year. But more importantly, what a waste of time for kids. We've all seen how happy kids are to get out for summer break. But within a few weeks, most are fairly bored most of the time, and are inventing ways to spend their time, which sometimes gets them into trouble. Then, come fall, teachers spend weeks reminding the kids of the information they forgot over the summer. It takes the average child until the age of 18 to learn very little, where it could all be taught to the child by age 16 if so much time were not wasted.

Some easy solutions come to mind. Unfortunately, most of these would be outright rejected by teachers and their unions, because it takes away their precious summer break and makes them work more. Don't get me wrong. I feel that teachers are woefully underpaid to do an immensely important job (teaching the adults and leaders of tomorrow). So I sympathize with them. But in my plan (which will be discussed at a later time), teachers get paid a lot more than they do now.

My solution is to have children attend school for 210 days a year (as opposed to 180), and for 6.5 to 7 hours of classroom time per day (say 8 to 3:30 with a lunch and 5 minute breaks between classes). This would give a child an extra 465 to 570 hours in the classroom each year. Currently there are 900 hours a year of classroom time, and this plan would increase that dramatically by more than 50% to about 1400 hours a year. Imagine what a child could learn with almost 50% more hours in a good classroom environment. To graduate from HS (grades 1-12) it currently takes 10,800 hours in a classroom. If we divide that by 1400 hours a year instead of 900 hours a year we get 7.7 years. So by the end of the 8th grade a child could have just as many hours under this system as a HS graduate does now.

Of course, everyone needs a break from time to time. This 210 day system would consist of 4 11-week terms and would include a full 3 weeks off around Christmastime (the last 2 weeks of December and the first week of January), 3 weeks off around the 4th of July (last 2 weeks in June and first full week in July), and 1 week off between the first two terms and the last two terms (roughly last week of March and last week of September, respectively). The school year would start in January, and end in December.

This would still give families plenty of time for a long summer vacation (as long as most parents' work schedules will provide), but also give families more time off around the end of the year and a week for mini vacations each spring and fall. But it saves parents from having to find day care for their kids all summer long. Too many parents can't even afford that, and end up leaving kids at home alone, or with just an older sibling all day. Rather than learning from Mr. Smith or Mrs. Jones in school, as they could be, the kids are learning from Mr. TV and Mrs. X-box at home.

So rather than letting our kids waste too much of their childhood, or worse, let's increase learning and extend the school year to something more intelligent than the 100+ year-old "traditional" system.