The Free Press

New web site!!

2010-04-04T23:06:00.000-07:00

Head over to our new site at FreePressOnline.net

Are the World Bank and the IMF Really "Capitalist" Ideas?

2010-03-31T10:34:00.000-07:00

Patrick O’Sullivan

Often times when one listens to or reads the arguments of those who make it their job to “overthrow the capitalist system,” one will come across the notion that many of the ills of the status quo (which is invariably labeled as “capitalism”) are due in large part to certain institutions which, it is insinuated, are inherent to a capitalist system. Usually such insinuations are peculiar, as, more often than not, the exact opposite is true. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are two institutions which often take the brunt of the “anti-capitalist” storm, but do they really deserve such treatment?

The IMF and the World Bank are both known for their practice of lending to the cash-strapped governments of developing countries. Both the IMF and the World Bank often use their lending power as leverage in order to encourage participating governments to embrace reforms recommended by the institutions. Such recommendations tend to call for the privatization of government services. This is where those who tend to call themselves “anti-capitalists” point when they say that these institutions are “capitalist.” Just calling for privatization, however, does not necessarily constitute a “capitalist” or “free market” position. A market can only be considered “free” when there is an absence of forceful coercion perpetrated against the individual, and all transactions are conducted in a free and voluntary manner. Many of the privatization efforts called for by these institutions are directly counter to the notion of a market free from coercion; many of the efforts simply call for governments to hand over monopoly control of certain services (water, power, communications, etc.) to large multi-national corporations.

A policy of allowing only one company or group to legally perform a service must necessarily rest on coercion, which runs against free market capitalism. The problem arises when governments enforce monopolies of private industry and shut down entrepreneurs for unauthorized competition with the government-contracted multi-national corporation. One example of this might be when an entrepreneur digs a well and begins pumping and selling water to his fellow villagers for less than the price that the government-contracted multi-national corporation is charging, and as a result the government steps in and stops the entrepreneur’s business activity in order to preserve the corporation’s monopoly. Another example would be when a clever individual begins collecting rainwater in a number of large steel drums that he owns and then begins to sell or otherwise distribute, and the government steps in to preserve the monopoly of the privately contracted corporation which provides the same service. It is not difficult to see how these are not true capitalist or free market situations. Such situations are essentially fascist (or national corporatist) situations, wherein the country is essentially run for and by a few key corporations with control over the state monopoly of the use of force.

In opposition to the above situation is the common view espoused by many libertarians and classical liberals, in which a minarchic state (minimum government) wields objective law-based monopoly over the use of force (police power), without special privilege given to any entity or group. In the most extreme view of capitalism, Rothbardian anarcho-capitalistism, there should exist no entity with such a monopoly on the use of force. After understanding this, it does not logically follow that systems which call for special privilege for none or the absence of any and all coercive interference at all, should be associated with political economies like those seen in the developing countries effected by the policies of the World Bank or the IMF.

The supposition that such institutions are a natural and inherent feature of capitalism is totally refuted by the fact that they were created by states through treaties, and would cease to exist without state funding; they were not and could not have been organic market occurrences. Simply, such institutions are the products of ideas embraced by proponents of state intervention in the global economy. In fact, the creation of government funded development banks, and the centralization and control of credit in state hands, happens to be the fifth of the ten point program of communism given in Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’ infamous work, The Communist Manifesto. It almost seems laughable that anyone could even think to call such a policy “capitalist,” but, indeed, many do so without reservation.

Somalia: No Libertarian Utopia

2010-03-31T10:33:00.000-07:00

Andrea Castillo

“Yeah, well, if you think that government is so terrible, why don’t you just pack up your bags and move to SOMALIA!” As a libertarian, I cringe whenever a debate opponent of mine stoops to that certain talking point. Mind you, it’s not that their challenge is particularly witty or even well thought-out; on the contrary, I find myself frustrated by the general lack of understanding about Somalia’s recent history or current political situation. This ignorance seems to be all too pervasive among the college-going populace. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that Somalia’s history during the second half of the twentieth century illustrates that a predatory government was largely responsible for most of the troubles we have come to associate with the country. Because of their ignorance, advocates of a strong state use Somalia’s recent history as a cheap cliché in order to insult anyone who dares criticize our government.

As with most controversial or delicate issues, I feel the need to first briefly preface: I do not intend to imply that anarchy in Somalia is preferable to the functioning constitutional republic in the United States, or the governments of many other countries in the world. I’m sure that several of you have either seen photographs or heard anecdotal evidence of some of the tragedies and hardships that may have occurred in Somalia (most likely in the capital city of Mogadishu). Let me assure you: Somalia is hardly a libertarian paradise. In certain areas of the country, competing tribes of warlords are have swarmed to fill the power vacuum in the area, resulting in extreme violence. Not coincidentally, the aforementioned afflicted areas tend to score pretty low in promoting the “protection of property” and “facilitation of justice” that advocates of limited government so value. Despite this, evidence does suggest that Somalia has shown steady economic growth since the collapse of its tyrannical government and shows positive signs for sustained prosperity in the area.

Before we can understand the situation today, we need to review a bit of this country’s history. Prior to the foundation of Western-style government in the twentieth century, Somalis had traditionally lived in family-oriented communities that were governed by decentralized common law Xeer courts. The modern state of “Somalia” became one sovereign nation in 1961 when the representatives of its citizenry ratified and adopted its official constitution. In 1976, the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (the Xisbiga Hantiwadaagga Kacaanka Soomaaliyeed, or XHKS in their native language) seized control of the nation and established themselves as the only political party. The leadership of this party chose to follow what they called “scientific socialism.” The XHKS would hoard power until the Somali state’s eminent collapse in 1991.

While in control, XHKS implemented a series of “land reclamation” reforms premised on nationalization of private property and subsequent redistribution. As a result, thousands of Somalis were displaced and relocated from their families’ ancestral homes at the hands of their predatory government, who would typically dole out the stolen lands to military leaders and political allies. The government also levied unbearable tax burdens on its citizens, extracting most of their personal wealth while spending 90% of its revenue on military and defense, even during the few periods of peace. With all of this background in mind, it’s not very hard to see how the people of Somalia could have a difficult time creating economic growth in order to enjoy general prosperity.

Not content with destroying the domestic economy of their own nation, the XHKS also continually provoked their Ethiopian neighbors with acts of military aggression because of past tribal conflicts over land. This served to weaken the Somali government until its eventual overthrow by Ethiopian forces in 1991. The next few years were met by punctuated unrest, particularly when U.N. or U.S. “peacekeeping forces” provoked further violence after being deployed in the country. Despite these hardships, slowly but surely the Somalis managed to reestablish their economic footing. Since the Somalis had customarily lived under a decentralized system of law that protected and respected individual property rights, small sections of the nation gradually reverted to the old pre-Western way of life even while neighboring provinces were literally under fire. Mogadishu, the former capital, is actually the area that suffers the most persistent violence and disorder since rival warlords continually attempt to revive the Western-style Somali state and assume its power. Outside the capital and its outlying areas, however, there appears to be a kind of unspoken truce that keeps this wounded country functioning while its citizens attempt to better their lives.

Not only is life drastically less violent in the majority of the country than in Mogadishu, but since the collapse of the Western-style central government in 1991, many industries in Somalia have boomed against all odds. According to a 2003 World Bank study, the private sector grew impressively, particularly in the areas of trade, commerce, transport, remittance and infrastructure services, in addition to the primary sectors, notably livestock, agriculture and fisheries. Agriculture and livestock have proven to be lucrative industries for the Somalis; cattle sales have increased by 400%, goat exports account for 95% of Africa’s total and sheep exports account for 52% of Africa’s total. The private airline industry is prospering and is comprised of 15 different firms, 60 planes, and 6 international routes. Somalia has one of the best telecommunications systems on the continent: several companies such as Golis Telecom Group, Hormuud Telecom, Somafone, Nationlink, Netco, Telecom and Somali Telecom Group provide crystal-clear service, including international long distance, for about $10 a month. Multinational corporations such as Dole, Coca Cola, and DHL have invested in Somalia and several oil companies have expressed interest in establishing operations there as well.

In addition to their sustained economic prosperity, standards of living in Somalia have dramatically improved since the collapse of its government in 1991. In 2005, the Independent Institute found that the death rate, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, quality of main telephone lines, risk of tuberculosis, and immunization for measles and DTP had risen significantly since their last measurement in 1990.

Although the country has experienced noticeable improvements in the past decade, there is still much unrest in the area. Most people immediately associate Somalia with the recent news about piracy in the waters that surround their borders and frequent clashes between warlords. The constant flow of foreign aid provides a steady stream of income for power-hungry warlords to ensure that they are well-equipped with weapons. Yet somehow, against all of the odds, the people of Somalia have managed to carve out a separate peace for themselves. Though their current situation is hardly a Utopia, it is certainly lightyears beyond the tyranny they had previously suffered at the hands of their pre-1991 government. Upon reviewing the empirical evidence it is clear that Somalia is neither a libertarian paradise nor an example of a society in chaos without the “necessary” structures of a government, but is in a class all of its own.

Economics and Happiness

2010-03-31T10:31:00.000-07:00

Thomas Laughlin

We as Americans are blessed with the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Our prosperity affects everyone at every level of society. We can send metal tubes filled with sophisticated machinery to visit and return from a laboratory in perpetual freefall over the earth. We have the knowledge and tools to eradicate plagues that once exterminated entire populations of humans. And even more important, any person in the United States can go to a local deli or supermarket and pick up the ingredients for nearly any meal they want to have that night, regardless of season or their proximity to where that ingredient was produced.

There are people still alive today that lived in a time when none of this prosperity comprehendible. Americans just a hundred years ago lived in what today would be considered a third-world or developing nation. The source of our rapid growth and development is by no means a mistake, but it was not planned. Modern economists take a more realistic point of view and by looking at the political and economic differences of many nations, they have come to identify the key ingredients to prosperity and happiness.

For the last decade, The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation have worked together to produce an Index of Economic Freedom which provides extensive statistics and data based on their research of economies all over the world. By comparing economic institutions among many countries, they have listed ten components necessary for any economy to flourish. The essential idea is that the freedom of a person to own property and trade with as little interference from government or other entity that leads to 2 overall economic prosperity. The conclusion is that such factors including per capita income, political stability, economic growth, environmental protection and the elimination of poverty and disease are all consequences of a liberalized, or unrestricted, economy.

Some would argue that such measurements are problematic because some cultures and peoples of the world just interact differently than we do and as a result that economic institutions may need to be different. While this is an old argument, its ignorance is evident if we just take real world examples from the various cultures and peoples around the globe. China’s economy has only experienced significant growth after the implementation of certain free market ideas like private property rights. Cuba, once a playground for the wealthiest people in the world, now suffers from an extremely depreciated standard of living compared to that of just sixty years ago. And perhaps the most telling example is the difference between North Korea and South Korea. These are basically the same people with shared language, history, religion and culture and yet South Korea is a modern, developed nation while North Korea experiences regular shortages, famines and blackouts.

If more people paid attention to the Index of Economic Freedom, widespread problems such as poverty would be much easier to alleviate. Ultimately, it is the free market that creates the most happiness for the most people.

Chinese Devaluation and American Protection

2010-03-31T10:27:00.000-07:00

Hunter Carter

A couple weeks ago the New York Times ran an article entitled, “China Uses Rules on Global Trade to Its Advantage.” At first glance one might assume such actions by the Chinese to be grossly unfair. American politicians and academics argue that China’s devaluation of its currency does not allow other countries a fair opportunity in the global trade arena. Is this really the case? Or is China simply using its economic might in the same way that both Britain and the United States have in the past?

China’s advantage is that it efficiently produces goods that consumers abroad want and can afford to buy. The Times article actually backs up such logic: “China had a $198 billion trade surplus with the rest of the world last year, with its exports to the United States outpacing imports by more than four to one” [emphasis mine]. This brings to mind the economic Law of Comparative Advantage. China has established itself as the world leader in efficiency while the rest of the world tries to compete directly, rather than finding a profitable niche market untapped by China. This is not to say companies in other countries cannot make a profit, they do every day. China simply enjoys circumstances such as a low cost of labor that helps it produce goods at a lower cost.

In order to combat China’s advantage, the U.S. government has taken a page from the protectionist playbook and proposed a 25% tariff on Chinese goods to the Chinese and their devalued currency. This may appear good at first glance, but economics is not about first glances. Economics is an art. As Henry Hazlitt defined it in his book Economics in One Lesson, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy…” In this case a 25% tariff is horrible in the long term. Perhaps our emotions are appeased by “sticking it to China”, but imagine the consequence to the American consumer, already struggling to pay bills, if the price of every Chinese good increases 25%. Presently, low priced Chinese goods are enabling lower and middle class Americans to enjoy higher standards of living despite a sluggish economy. The government, under the pretense of help and protection, is about to promote a policy that will hurt the very people it uses to justify the tariff in the first place.

On top of the consumer issue, a 25% tariff is simply a crutch that the U.S. government gives to competing American companies. This crutch makes it easier to compete with Chinese firms. Why, though, should they stay in business if they cannot compete? We should approach this issue with logic rather than emotion. Free up those currently idle resources and allow more profitable, entrepreneurial firms an opportunity to show what they can do.

I admit that such talk by professionals, when mentioned to the emotionally in-tune economic layman, is often viewed as a “wrong against [insert certain group of people].” There is one problem with such a response. Economics, like nature (think gravity), has set laws that cannot be changed, regardless of current wishful thinking in politics.

On the Lighter Side

2010-03-31T10:23:00.000-07:00

Liberia Begins Monumental Engineering Project, Gives Up Minutes Later
G.T. Johnson

MONROVIA— Hoping to stimulate its flat-lining economy, President Ellen Sirleaf of Liberia announced last week the construction of a transcontinental zip-line that would span from the coastal capital of Monrovia to the bustling shores of America. 150 highly-motivated workers commenced construction of the project Monday morning in front of a cheering crowd of starving yet optimistic Liberian citizens. After 15 minutes of trying to tie a rope to the top of a tall tree, the laborers gave up and went home. “This doesn’t make any sense,” muttered lead engineer Ndudi Akoiwala, looking down at the blueprints he had scribbled on his napkin a few days ago.

A quick glimpse of the blueprints revealed a curvy line connecting Monrovia to an unspecified point near Miami, inexplicably going around the western coast of Cuba. Small trees were sketched at each end of the line, but there was no indication about what sort of device would be used to traverse the path. Liberia’s Power lines were apparently expected to connect the countries, as their entire power grid was taken down and dragged by hand to the coastal city. Some laborers such as Sheriff Abdullai complained about the dangerous work. “It was scary climbing to the top of the poles and yanking at the power lines,” said a visibly frustrated Sheriff. “Now I’ve been told we have to climb back up there and put them back. This is really gay. I’m so hungry.”

The enormous undertaking, intended to bring Liberia’s economy into the 21st century, was expected to cost around 95 billion Liberian dollars. With the estimate far exceeding the country’s pathetic GDP, Monrovia sent a letter to Washington asking for a loan after spelling out why the expensive project would be in America’s self-interest. “We have all sorts of exotic coffee and rice that you might like,” the letter read. “We could send fine Liberian products to you on the zip line, and in return you could send something to provide us with a few fleeting seconds of joy.” As of today the White House reports it has not seen the letter; it was posted a week ago on the wall of a Barack Obama Facebook page.

Desperate for funds, President Sirleaf resorted to forcing her great nephew Emmanuel to begin printing money by making photocopies of a Liberian dollar. Emmanuel has been working tirelessly at the copy machine for 48 straight hours without sleep and Sirleaf plans to inform him of the project’s cancellation eventually.

The resilient little country has already started planning their next project which reportedly involves two empty cans and a piece of string.

Upcoming Events

2010-03-31T10:20:00.000-07:00

-The Center for Participant Education: Weekly Meetings – Thursdays 8PM @ Oglesby 303K

-Young Americans for Liberty: Dr. Randall Holcombe will be speaking on “"From Liberty to Democracy: The Transformation of American Government" – April 1st 7PM @ HCB 216

-"We The People" Rally in Tally. Thursday, April 15, 2010, 4pm-7pm. Front steps of Florida's historic capitol (corner of Monroe/Apalachee). Speakers, Live Music, and More! Bring a sign, a love of liberty, and a friend. For more details, visit: www.WeThePeopleRally.us

Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/RallyInTally

Find us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rallyintally

*If you would like us to announce an organization’s events please contact us. If you would like to respond to any article please go to thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com or e-mail us with a 300-400 word response. We are always looking for different perspectives.

The Green Fee: Wise or Wasteful?

2010-02-21T12:07:00.000-08:00

Andrea Castillo

Pat yourselves on the back and create a fan page on Facebook; your student government is about to save the planet. There has been raucous debate that spans from community discourse all the way to an international summit in Copenhagen concerning the health of our planet and humanity's role and degree in contributing to its harm. But don’t worry, FSU SGA has all the answers and is here to save the day. They have proposed a new “Green Fee” which will help promote sustainability on campus.

The best news? SGA’s proposal will only cost you 50 cents more per credit hour. That is, of course, after the $9.97 per credit hour Activities and Service Fee, the recently-established $2 per credit hour increase to help fund the fancy new health center that probably won't be built until after you graduate, the $6.77 per credit hour Athletic fee that helps fund the various gym and sports complexes that you may or may not actually use, and the $7.40 per credit hour Transportation fee to help subsidize the bus fare for the students that actually ride the bus, among other things. But don’t worry, our wise student representatives see important uses for more of your money—or at least that’s what they want us to believe.

Instead of buying into the green fee, and SGA’s good intentions, we should all question the wisdom in appropriating more fee money for a new cause when SGA already wastes so much money.

If our Student Government is the judge, jury, and executioner of where and when our funds will be spent, the results will be as disastrous as they are unabashedly wasteful. Far from representing the "student body's interest", our representatives appear to be united in their quest to serve their own individual interests with vigor. I implore every reader to make at least one trip to a Senate meeting to see firsthand the problem about which I speak – they meet every Wednesday at 7PM in the 3rd floor of the Union (look for the room with the big comfortable-looking leather chairs, you can't miss it). How can we expect a body, like our Student Senate, that accepts a weekly bribe from Aramark Food Services (a generous buffet complete with chicken strips, gourmet cookies and punch) and celebrates itself with SGA Senate Appreciation Day, to know the first thing about conservation of anything? If people in student government desire sustainability, perhaps they should work with the money they already have, cut some perks, trips and budgets, and get serious about the plight of the average student.

Few people will object to the stated goals of green initiatives; we all live on the same planet and benefit from not having to worry about being pelted by acid rain every time we step outside. On a more specific level, even fewer people would probably object to the Florida State University campus taking positive cost-conscious steps towards improving our campus's efficiency while identifying and eliminating potential sources of waste.

The easiest and most effective way that FSU can decrease the size of our carbon footprint would also alleviate the strains of the state-wide education budget cuts: hire an outside professional auditing agency to review FSU's budget and identify sources of waste and redundancy. The money that the school would save could then be channeled towards investments in green technology that would save the school money on energy costs. Just because something is called "green" does not necessarily mean it is a positive good for all parties involved; professionals should be consulted to pinpoint which specific devices would promote sustainability and be economically beneficial for our campus. This solution would put a stop to current waste while allowing for investment in environmentally-conscious technology, and it wouldn't cost you or I one cent more than what we are currently paying.

Though the proponents of this green fee may lead you to believe otherwise, their stated objectives towards environmental harmony are far from pure and selfless. On the contrary, if our student leaders and the real-life politicians that are supporting them were really genuine about environmental protection, their plans would not involve self-serving student body politics and opportunities to put your name on a new solar panel installation. Ultimately, I implore all students to scrutinize any platform or stated goal of any politician; be it Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner on the national level or the kid who sits next to you in Biology class on the campus level. Any idiot can promise you "green initiatives" and "job creation" but it is doubtful that such initiatives will provide worthwhile solutions to real life problems.

Global Warming: Shifting the Debate

2010-02-21T12:04:00.000-08:00

Matthew Allen Miller

Many arguments for government action resemble the following non sequitur: “X is a problem; therefore government action is necessary to address X.” Unfortunately, the validity of these kinds of arguments often goes unquestioned, even by those who disagree with whatever the conclusion happens to be. Instead, many focus only on the premise: they debate whether X is actually the case, or whether X is even a problem. Few, it seems, are concerned with whether the conclusion (that government action is necessary) logically follows from the premise.

This seems to be true of the debate about anthropogenic (“man-made”) global warming (AGW). Now, I’m hardly competent to judge the relevant science, and I doubt most involved in the debate are either. But it seems to me that the science is where too much of the debate is focused. That is, skeptics question the truth of AGW and the science meant to support it. While I certainly have my doubts about AGW, for practical purposes I choose to remain agnostic. This is partly due to my above-mentioned scientific incompetence. But it is also because I believe it is more important and productive to place my skepticism elsewhere. What I prefer to argue is that, even if AGW is true, it hardly follows that we ought to empower government to take measures to reverse it.

Logic tells us that, in order to reach this conclusion, at least both of the following must be true: (1) Human planning has a good chance of reversing the climate trends of planet Earth. (2) Government is the best candidate for successfully designing and implementing the plan.
One might argue for (1), stating that “we started the trend, so surely we can reverse it.” But this neglects the important distinction between unintended results of mere human action, and intended results of human designs or plans. If AGW is true, it is the unintended result of billions of humans acting in pursuit of their interests. But no one planned it. However, reversing the climate trends of planet Earth must be designed or planned. But the plan to reverse AGW would necessarily run against the grain of those countless human actions which are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. Think of the measures which would have to be taken, and the resistance they would face. This conflict casts significant doubt on whether any plan to reverse AGW can successfully be implemented.

This doubt should increase when we consider (2) that the plan to reverse AGW is to be designed and enforced by government. This is the same institution running the post office, the DMV, and Amtrak (to name just a few); the workings of which cannot compare to the efficiency of private enterprise. An important reason for this is the problem of incentives. If those in the private sector fail, they lose profits and go out of business. But if a government agency fails, the likely result is that it will get more tax dollars and more power. Those in government have little incentive to get things right. But they do have the incentive to stay in power, and thus to please those who will help keep them there. This means, for example, pleasing those in big-business and heavily-unionized industries. But these interest groups are often involved in activities that are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. How can we expect those in government to please these folks and reverse AGW at the same time? It is doubtful that they can.

The lessons to take home are the following. First, humility and honesty demand that we recognize our limited capacity to engineer a reversal in the climate trends of planet Earth. Second, a realistic understanding of the true nature and workings of those in government suggests that we should be suspicious of government solutions to AGW. Both points directly challenge those who want to empower government to take action. But the above ideas also challenge AGW skeptics to recognize that, in addition to arguing against the science, a more obvious and compelling case can be made against the idea that government is capable of solving the problems presented by AGW.

Climate-Gate: All About Science or Just Money?

2010-02-21T11:59:00.000-08:00

Amar Ali

What is the climate really? What are people talking about when they say “the climate” or “climate change”? In all the arguing and back and forth about global warming and climate change, we may have lost sight of an underlying concept which is central to grasping this widely discussed issue.

The definition of climate is “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.”1

So what we think of as the climate is essentially a running average of the weather. Similarly, climate change is basically a conclusion reached by looking at trends in the historical record.
The conclusion that climate change and global warming is occurring was reached by a bare simple majority of scientists (not climate experts) who claimed that there was a rise in the world’s average temperature. They argued that this rise is clearly attributed to a rise in carbon dioxide or CO2 level in the atmosphere, which, in turn, is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels by humans.

Now if you have taken a statistics or econometrics class or you’re just a sports enthusiast, you know the enormous room for miscalculation and manipulation that exists when calculating averages. Imagine for example, if you looked at the batting average for any run of the mill rookie and averaged in Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire’s record blowing, once in a life time averages in the 1998 season (during their heyday). The addition of Sosa and McGwire’s averages would certainly throw off the average of all rookies. This would seem suspicious to say the least. Yet that is exactly what climate scientists have been caught doing.2 But its not just inflating the numbers. If we only looked at Sammy Sosa’s batting average for 1998 and said that was the average for his entire career, which would be a completely unsubstantiated claim.3

Recently, evidence has been uncovered that shows that advocates of the theory of global warming have manipulated the data in order to support their assertions. They have lost data and hidden evidence, downplayed previous non-human induced warming cycles, and covered up evidence which suggests that there has been no global warming since 1995. The data, unfortunately for the global warmers, did not go along with their theory.4

So what explains this manipulation and fabrication of data? Why would someone knowingly lie and continue to do so when they knew the opposite was true? As a cynic once advised, we should follow the money for people’s true motivations. Fear and hysteria can lead people to act differently than they normally would, including giving billions to fear-mongerers and snake oil salesmen who insist that only they know the problem and the solution.5

What is worse is most people’s ignorance of science leads them to shift the debate away from the faulty science and manipulation by agenda and greed driven scientists. Many people forget basic facts taught in their high school biology classes: that the so-called pollutant, CO2, is a byproduct of all life on earth, whether humans are breathing it out or plants taking it in during photosynthesis.6 The lack of scientific knowledge leads many people to accept global warming and enter into a useless discussion about who can or cannot best solve the problems brought on by climate. But why solve a problem that doesn’t exist? The only problem here is fraud, lack of transparency and most importantly, greed.7

1.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate
2.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
3.Ibid
4.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

The Environment Protected by Private Property Rights

2010-02-21T11:57:00.000-08:00

Alex Boler

The environment is threatened by polluting industries, poachers, trash and more trash, and a long list of other things, all caused by man. The solution is simple: more government regulation. Right?

Well, no. There is a better alternative: bolstering private property rights and privatizing public spaces is a better solution to preserving the environment and valuable property.

Private property rights ensure that if one person (or business) violates another’s property with pollution, the harmed party is able to recoup damages (through the legal system). Should your neighbor pour some chemicals on your lawn, and it causes damage to you or your property, you can sue for restitution and recompense. This offsets the damage to your property, plus it punishes the polluter. Under a system where property rights were expanded, and public lands were privatized, polluters would be much less inclined to take action that would damage another party’s property and the environment.

However, in our current system, many polluters are able to pollute public spaces because there is no private owner inclined to protect that space. In our current system it is more cost effective to pollute than innovate. If public spaces were privately held, industry would need to be more responsive to the damages they were causing other property owners. Under such circumstances, industry would be more likely to innovate, and as a result the environment would benefit.

We can also protect endangered species by reinforcing private property rights. Poaching of endangered species mostly occurs in the public lands. If poaching occurred on private property it would simply be trespassing, destruction of property, and theft. Hunting on private lands is often managed by the owner in order to preserve the value of the property.

A good example of this can be seen in Africa, where in many places wild animals on public lands were being poached to the extent that many were coming dangerously close to local extinction. This changed in certain areas, when local tribes were given property rights and allowed to harvest the animals as a resource. The tribes saw that it was important to protect these animals. The tribes guarded the animals, and the poachers were able to turn to a more efficient legal enterprise. As a result, in some areas wild animal populations have rebounded.

In the United States, bison were once an endangered species, but property rights and the profit motive have helped their numbers grow. Ted Turner, the largest private landowner in the United States, raises bison on several of his ranches. He now serves bison meat in his restaurants. Because of this, bison, now a resource, have become more plentiful.

Fundamentally, when a person places greater value on property rights, he also places greater value on the environment. His preferences are affected such that he is less likely to harm the environment when making rational decisions. Harm to the environment is viewed as a cost. One of the best ways to decrease a person’s likelihood to harm the environment is to increase his valuation of it. This can be done by education, so that individuals like and enjoy the environment, but the most direct way is to privatize public spaces. In a system where private property rights dominate all spaces, harm to the property of another will be punished in arbitration.

Legislation created by a group of power-hungry politicians, and enforced by a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats, is very unlikely to do any net-good. In the end, private property rights are the better alternative. They ensure that the incentives necessary for human prosperity are in place, and such rights create a situation in which the environment can be protected legally and fairly.

Don’t Squash the Litterbug

2010-02-21T11:47:00.000-08:00

Tom Laughlin

Have you ever seen someone just drop a piece of litter in front of you? Have you ever missed the trash can when practicing your three-pointers? As an onlooker of either of these events, it’s hard not to cringe at seeing another piece of refuge join its nomadic relatives found in public parks, along interstates or in just about any public venue you can imagine.

We’ve grown up under constant pressure to pick up after ourselves and recycle at every opportunity we get. But, why is it that, even after the wide-spread campaigns and community service efforts of your local penal institution, we can still find litter in any public area?

Consider first the definition of the word ‘litter’. Litter is often defined as waste that is unlawfully disposed of on public lands. This might seem like subtle matter to most people, but litter is different than trash, because it can only exist in the public domain. Although trash in its various forms does exist in private establishments; it is not considered litter. When you leave a messy plate and crumpled napkins at a table in a restaurant, you haven’t littered. Likewise, in the pristine, sterile laboratories of a microchip manufacturer, hair or oil from skin left behind isn’t considered litter either.

After all, these are all examples of types of waste, so what’s the difference? The difference is that in these private sector examples, the demands of consumers regulate the health of the environment. In a laboratory or hospital where sterility is next to godliness, waste will contribute to product malfunctions or a patient may become infected. Either case is detrimental to the bottom line of the establishment for obvious reasons. In fact, the owner of a trashed restaurant, a grimy ER room or a dusty lab will soon find himself in bankruptcy and removed from
inconveniencing or harming anyone at all. Fundamentally, the profit motive is a direct incentive to keep trash, even trash at a microscopic level, clear of earning the ire of a population.

The fact of the matter is that people, for sake of their flawed humanity, will inevitably continue to leave garbage, trash, skin cells and other refuge wherever and whenever they choose. The private sector will make due with this unsavory revelation in accordance with what is tolerable to all of us consumers.

In the end, we do still have the problem of litter existing in public places. If not for the charitable nature of volunteers and others, we would likely find our roadways, water and parks covered in litter. So what should we do about this perpetual problem? Enacting new bureaucracies or enacting new laws to try to counter human nature seems less than enticing, as well as ineffective. If we really care about the environment and if we are tired of seeing it littered and polluted, then we should shift stewardship and ownership of public lands to the people who will best take care of it: private land owners.

Readers Response: Healthcare

2010-02-21T11:39:00.000-08:00

Patients First
Andrew Hautau

After going to a church retreat about a month ago, I soon discovered that it was perhaps unwise to have played ultimate frisbee in the cold and rain. The next day I came down with the flu, and by mid week I was scrambling to find a walk-in clinic that might provide some help. I decided to go to one of the many "Patients First" walk-in clinics in town, as it seemed convenient enough. After giving the receptionist my insurance information and waiting for an hour, I was turned away because that particular office would not accept either of my insurance plans. I am covered twice over as a dependent, and I was still not accepted at this particular office. Over the flu.

I was pointed to another "Patients First" clinic on the other side of town that would accept my insurance. As I waited to see the doctor, I was dismayed to see what might arguably be the culmination of what I see as wrong with a capitalist health care system. Gift cards. Yes, you read correctly. A sign, apparently for the holiday season, hung over the cards that said something to the effect of "For that special someone this holiday season." The card is labeled as "Care Ca$h", as though one were buying the equivalent of a card from Best Buy.

If you find this as laughable, please pause for a moment and ask yourself, why is this so funny? The "Care Ca$h" gift cards at the "Patients First" clinics here in Tallahassee are only the logical culmination of a health care system that is built around profit. This system is built around distributing health care as a product or service, just as many conservatives and libertarians espouse as the solution to all problems. In fact, as the argument goes, government only stands in the way of real solutions to all the problems of the system. In a single payer system, there would be no need for "Care Ca$h" cards, and "Patients First" would become more than a pithy name. While greed and profit may be an excellent motivation for other aspects of our economy, it should have no place in dictating public health. Alexander Hamilton once said, "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments." We desperately need that moderation.

***If you would like to respond to any article please go to thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com or e-mail us with a 300-400 word response.

A DIFFERENT TAKE

2010-02-21T11:37:00.000-08:00

Gore Children Sit Upstairs Frightened After Dad Ruins Another Family Dinner
G.T. Johnson

Nashville, TN-- The four children of former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore sat nervously in their bedrooms Tuesday evening as their parents engaged in a heated fight in the downstairs kitchen. Daughters Kristin, 32, and Sarah, 31, were visiting Al and Tipper Gore after a skiing trip in Gatlinburg, while eldest daughter Karenna, 36, was in town with her husband Dr. Andrew Schiff. Albert III, 26, made a rare appearance from his parents’ basement to join the family for dinner.

Joined by Dr. Schiff, the family exchanged in pleasant conversation over their meal until a comment by Tipper on the weather created an uncomfortable moment at the table. “Were you able to park in the garage? It sure is cold outside.” The children stopped eating, knowing how much their father hates when anyone mentions the cold. They slowly looked up from their meals and nervously glanced over at their dad who was staring across the table at their mom. They sunk down in their seats, fearing another overreaction.

“Kids, why don’t you go to your rooms,” said Al Gore as he moved his fingers along the toothed blade of his steak knife.

Dr. Schiff’s mother offered reporters a comment on the situation. “Andrew called me at about 7:30 last night. He said that Karenna’s mom and dad were fighting in the kitchen and that he was really scared. When I went to go pick him up I could hear screaming from the kitchen and blood was coming out from under the door.”

Tipper stood in the corner weeping frantically while Al inexplicably plunged his knife into the flesh of their cat, skinning it alive while he yelled at his wife for trying to undermine proven science in front of their children. At the top of the stairs, Karenna held her arms around her crying sisters as she listened to the sounds of her howling mother and shrieking kitten. Karenna hated for her younger siblings to hear their parents fight, and tried to reassure them that mom and dad were not getting a divorce. In the basement, young Albert hid under his bed while covering his ears with his hands.

When leaving the house early Wednesday morning to go pick up her husband and drive back home, Karenna offered to tell reporters, “Dad tends to get really angry sometimes. It scares us a little, but we’re used to it. I just don’t understand why he always has to slaughter one of our pets. That’s all I have to say on the matter.”

Mandates: Good for the CEO, Bad for the “Average Joe”

2010-02-01T11:10:00.000-08:00

By: Andrea Castillo

At this point, as Florida State University students, the majority of us are pretty familiar with the idea of an “insurance mandate” regardless of whether or not we actually have our individual health insurance policies, or subscribe to FSU’s health insurance plan. While the contentious legislative debate about how our troubled health care system should be fixed seems to have largely settled, the most popular bill that emerged from the debate is dependent on the axiom that citizens should be required to purchase their own health insurance plans (the mandate) in order to promote the good of society.

While pundits from both sides of the political spectrum were preoccupied by a strenuous game of Capitalism versus Socialism, no one noticed when a more-than-average amount of health insurance company executives, labor union leaders, and lobbyists paid many visits to their chums on Capitol Hill. This lobbying was not limited to one political party. The debate on health care led to a type of “bipartisanship” which is only possible when money flows in waves into Washington D.C. Unfortunately, for the average citizen, this health care bill may prove itself to be one of the more bipartisan ones in recent memory.

Because of all of this so-called bipartisanship, our Congress decided to write a bill that does not favor the ordinary citizen. However, it does ensure a steady source of new clients and revenue for the big insurance companies and health care providers. With this proposed legislation, not only will the government protect insurance companies with regulations that act as barriers to entry for would-be competitors (as it does currently does), politicians are now going the extra mile and promising these companies a perpetual and legally obligated paycheck from American citizens who will be made into criminals and fined if they do not comply with the mandate. The government has essentially stated that it will use its monopoly on violence to make sure that you and I purchase the services of Humana or Blue Cross Blue Shield. Don't worry though, they tell us that they are doing it for our own good.

In 2007, the Florida State University administration, in congruence with the Florida legislature, amended its policy to require that all new students either purchase private insurance or enroll in the new university health insurance option. Contrary to popular thought, our friendly university employees actually aren't the same people who administer and manage our university health insurance plan. In reality, the university administration found it wiser to outsource to a private company that is already well-established and knowledgeable in the market: Blue Cross Blue Shield. You might have thought that your university health insurance plan had the advantage of avoiding an unnecessary and profit-reaping middleman, but ultimately, at the end of the day, your money ends up in the pockets of big health insurance. You should feel a warm tinge of pride upon knowing that your university led the charge for institution-mandated health insurance years before its time.

Unfortunately, we FSU students are not afforded to choice to decide whether or not paying for health services makes financial sense for our budgets. We are forced for pay $1,440 per year regardless. Because of this, FSU students find themselves paying a higher tuition at $17,880 per year than UF students do at $17,025 per year even though our schools' curriculum are identical. The people who supported this policy twiddled their thumbs and sheepishly defended the increase in cost, suggesting that it was only a 5% to 7% increase in tuition.

The Florida legislature, supported by our own Student Government Association (SGA) and Florida State University Office of Legislative Affair's official lobbyist, is currently musing over whether to impose this same burden of mandated health insurance on the students of all Florida public universities. The sponsors of the proposed legislation state that they aim to “improve universities’ ability to negotiate insurance policies, reduce the number of students who withdraw from college for medical reasons, and reduce the burden of uncompensated care on community health facilities.” Have they stopped to ask themselves why universities, institutions of higher learning, have taken it upon themselves to act like hospitals in the first place?

Personally, I expect to struggle with my studies; I don't see a reason to struggle with my ability to pay for health insurance before I can have the opportunity to study. Perhaps enacting this type of reform would improve university relations with various insurance providers, and maybe make some people feel good about somehow helping the disadvantaged, but I personally am not enrolled in college so that I can score a sweet insurance premium. If a student cannot afford to attend college because of these new extraneous health costs, for what purpose is the pursuit of higher education anyways? I'm sure the executives of Blue Cross Blue Shield are happy with the current situation, but perhaps university officials and SGA should try to put themselves in the shoes of students who already struggle with day-to-day expenses and have to struggle to pay for mandated health insurance.

Health Care and the Free Market

2010-02-01T11:03:00.000-08:00

By: Patrick O’Sullivan

Lately it has been asserted by many politicians, pundits, and political spectators that the problems with the health care system in the United States are ills caused by and related to a “free market” in health care. However, the health care system that the United States has today is far from anything that resembles a “free market.” There are several examples that illustrate this.

As it stands today, the United States has the third highest public spending on health related expenses per capita in the world. Hidden in this statistic is the fact government insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid) cover about 27% of the population. Add to this the fact that government spending on 27% of the population account for around 45% of total health spending in the United States. The point is that this is a large amount of money that the government is injecting into the health care market, which ultimately alters the dynamic of the market.

The government also directly involves itself in the health care market by encouraging certain behaviors. In particular, current federal policy treats employer funded health benefits as tax-exempt. Such policies encourage employers to shift a disproportionate amount of employee salaries toward health care insurance benefits, which incentivizes often wasteful insurance plans. Incentivizing a system of health insurance, supplied by employers, tends to create more problems in the market than it fixes.

People often do not spend the money of others as well as they do their own. For example, how do you think your own grocery shopping habits would change if you paid a flat, monthly rate for your groceries no matter what you bought? Would you care to compare the cost effectiveness and opportunity costs associated with different items? If you pay the same monthly rate either way, wouldn’t it seem silly to choose the store brand chocolate syrup over your preferred brand just because it’s two dollars cheaper? What will it matter, right? It’s just two dollars.

These problems are also evident in government incentivized, employer supplied health insurance. These problems tend to promote a distortion in the price system.

Does this mean that all insurance is bad? Of course not. Insurance is necessary to cover catastrophic and unlikely events. Much like people do not buy plans to cover routine everyday purchases like groceries, gasoline, clothing, oil changes, most people would not buy health insurance to cover routine doctor visits if they had a viable alternative.

That alternative is health savings accounts (HSA). If we had a truly free market in health care provision, without government spending or incentivizing, it would be one where people planned to pay for their own routine care, and took out insurance policies just to mitigate potential catastrophes. What I'm advocating, in essence, is the idea of most people should open savings accounts and save money for just routine, mundane doctor visits. These health savings accounts would be paired with high deductible health insurance which would only cover catastrophic illnesses like cancer or other possibly expensive diseases. The idea of high deductible catastrophic insurance mixed with HSAs is, essentially, just like the Whole Foods model promoted by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. It's also similar to the model in Singapore, where the government deducts payroll income and automatically deposits it into employees' personal HSAs.

Whole Foods employees, by and large, are very happy with their health care coverage, and Singapore currently has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world, and one of the highest life expectancies of any nation.
Wherever HSAs matched with catastrophic insurance plans, have been embraced, they have brought down costs and improved health care quality. In order to see such results, the U.S. government should stop incentivizing bad behavior by emphasizing employer provided, health benefits, and then work to further remove itself from the health care market wherever and whenever possible. The market cannot begin to correct the health care crisis until it is free from government intervention.

A DIFFERENT TAKE

2010-02-01T10:57:00.000-08:00

Election in Massachusetts Reveals Increasing Frustration with Gypsies

By: G.T. Johnson

The national debate over universal healthcare coverage for gypsies may have hit its climax with the Massachusetts special election to fill the senate seat vacated by the late Edward Kennedy. A victory by Attorney General Martha Coakley would have given Harry Reid the 60th vote he needed to pass the controversial GypsyCare through the Senate. However, the key vote was lost in the victory by anti-gypsy candidate Scott Brown, who previously gained national attention in 1954 when he filed suit against the Board of Education of Topeka and paved way for the integration of public schools. Brown’s victory in a state like Massachusetts reflects the increasing frustration that citizens across the country have revealed towards gypsies and their shenanigans.

In cities such as New York, people who regularly walk to work have been taking longer, less convenient routes in order to avoid packs of these mysterious vagabonds. A 29 year-old investment banker working in Manhattan has been warning friends and co-workers about the very real threats posed by gypsies, especially the young ones. “Gypsy children seem really cute at first because they’re colorful and look like the little boys from Hook. You really can’t help from clapping your hands and dancing when they surround you on the streets. But by the time you get home you realize your wallet is stolen, your bank account is wiped out, and you’re facing foreclosure.”

In the last decade, gypsy thievery has left thousands of people unable to pay their mortgage, and polls show that 78% of Americans name the resulting housing collapse and economic recession as the largest annoyance they have had to put up with. This causes many to passionately reject the notion of free health coverage for gypsies, which has become the hottest issue since President Obama took office. Health insurance providers frequently deny coverage to gypsies and powerful gypsy unions have been lobbying Washington for years to pass some sort of government funded coverage plan. Backers of this plan are now pointing to the earthquake in Haiti as what might happen when you do not give gypsies what they want. “I heard Pat Robertson talk about a deal that Haiti made with the gypsies some time ago, and this earthquake was the result of some gypsy curse,” remarked a GypsyCare supporter in Boston. “I think that sounds about right. Haiti’s probably a place where stuff like that happens.”

Evident by Scott Brown’s victory, Massachusetts voters do not see GypsyCare as a solution. They point to the state level healthcare program signed into law by Mitt Romney which provided free healthcare to all gypsies in Massachusetts. The idea was that gypsies would be satisfied by high quality healthcare at zero cost, but results have not been promising. On the campaign trail Scott Brown explained, “You think a trip to the doctor’s office is going to quell a gypsy’s child-like impulse to steal? Only if it comes with your watch, wedding ring, and youngest child.”

The Drug War: A Rant

2009-11-17T14:28:00.000-08:00

By: G.T. Johnson

If you happened to miss John Stossel’s lecture a couple weeks ago, you missed more than a few hundred college kids trying to one-up each other’s witty moustache comments. Mr. Stossel delivered a refreshingly logical speech on liberty that all college students need to hear, especially those caught in the near indistinguishable blathering of the two major political parties, such as my friend whom I sat with. My buddy is a die-hard Republican whose contempt for the left rivals Anakin Skywalker’s feelings towards Sand People. He attended the lecture under the impression that Stossel was the ideal “anti-liberal” because of his support of the free market. When Stossel spoke in favor of the legalization of drugs, my pal probably felt a bit like the Asian boy in Gran Torino when Clint Eastwood said no to retaliation against the local gang.

As Mr. Stossel understands, it’s hard to believe in freedom when you are against a man’s right to consume a plant. I’m pretty sure plant consumption is about as basic to human instinct as singing along to Don’t Stop Believing. Now don’t think I’m some irresponsible anarchist hippie who drops acid as much as Britney Spears drops her baby; I have less experience with drugs than Tim Tebow has with books (that aren’t the Bible). However, my belief in freedom is not going to diminish just because some of my classmates want to find a way to make Jimmy Fallon’s talk show funny. On top of that, it doesn’t take a night at a Phish concert to realize that the War on Drugs has less been successful than Matt Damon’s attempts to be taken seriously since the release of Team America.

I’m guessing that right about now most would agree that it sure would be nice to get back the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been taxed out of our paychecks in order to do nothing more than create a black market far more dangerous than a Bob Knight locker room after a loss, filled with bears. Look, I understand that some people do destroy their lives in pursuit of a perpetual high. Honestly though, even if you took away all the drugs in the world people would still destroy their lives in pursuit of pleasure and catharsis, and probably in much freakier ways involving sleep deprivation and Hannah Montana that I would rather not think about.

I can’t fail to mention that the costs of this war are increasing faster than the number of “Carrie Prejean sex tape” Google searches. Our elected officials have tied our country up like Ann Darrow in this expensive and bogus excuse of a “war”, but I very much envy her situation because the inevitable repercussions of our increasing spending and debt are going to make King Kong seem about as menacing as our football team’s defense. I’ll end my rant there; I hope I didn’t offend anyone.

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Break It

2009-11-17T14:27:00.000-08:00

By Andrea Castillo

George W. Bush famously expressed his intention to “abandon free market principles in order to save the free market” during his dismal period as a lame duck one whole year ago. Since then, the government has undergone some substantial changes which are not just limited to the obvious change of administrations, but also include a renewed commitment to intervene in the workings of the economy. Both presidential candidates in the 2008 election campaigned with sweeping promises of government initiatives to rectify the economic problems that plagued our markets. Whether realized through summer, tax-free gas holidays, a la John McCain, or through President Obama’s broader and potent federal, spending-stimulus program, during the election debate both sides of the aisle generally agreed that some kind of government intervention and stimulation were necessary to revitalize the economy.

It doesn’t take much time or effort for an individual to put faith in the convenient solution of allowing our ever-large government to roll up its sleeves and save us from our own greed and ineptitude. As busy college students, many of which may not be familiar with complicated economic concepts, we routinely hear Ivy-League-certified economists and official-sounding government administrators prattle on and on about how many jobs the stimulus is saving, how robust our GDP appears to be, how the financial markets are rising, and how many green industries are being funded. However, we rarely stop to consider what this “stimulus” even is and why anyone could possibly oppose it.

In order to understand opposition to the stimulus, we should look to the past. Way back in 1850, French philosopher Frédéric Bastiat provided us with a remarkable illustration of an embarrassingly obvious economic concept that somehow manages to elude many legislators today. In his essay “That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen,” Bastiat details an account of a shopkeeper and his son in a small town. The diligent shopkeeper’s son is unruly and bored, so one day he gathers stones and throws them against the side of the family shop. As could be expected, one of the stones hits the front window and shatters it. The shopkeeper, although irked with his boy, shakes his head at the prospect of having to purchase a new window. At this point, a small crowd gathers around the scene of the accident and begins chattering among themselves, as crowds typically do. They shake their heads at the carelessness of the rebellious youth, but they still manage to remark about how fortunate it is that little boys destroy windows, because if they didn’t, window-makers would surely go out of business.

At first glance, the analysis offered by the crowd might seem reasonable and just. After all, the shopkeeper’s loss is the window-maker’s gain. This is a natural and easily observed relationship between buyer and seller with which we are all familiar. However, the moment that someone suggests that we ought to purposefully destroy windows in order to keep the window-makers in business, that person has fallen into the fallacy of the broken window. Of course the window-making guild would be pleased with this kind of thought-process, but what of the other industries? If the boy had never broken the window, the shopkeeper would have spent that money elsewhere. Perhaps the store needed a new employee to help stock on the weekends, which would have given another individual a steady source of income which would be spent on various other items. The shopkeeper might have invested in a new street sign to attract customers, which would have given a fine commission to the local sign-maker. Maybe the shopkeeper wanted to treat himself to a fancy, new pair of shoes, which would have kept the cobbler busy with a new order. However, the fallacy of the broken window led the town to consider only the short-term and obvious benefits to the window-making industry while ignoring the complex market transactions that would have occurred without any destructive intervention.

We can apply this simple illustration to many complicated modern government “solutions” that are presented as one-size-fits-all quick-fixes. Most recently we can see the broken-window fallacy in the popular cash-for-clunkers program, which provided cash incentives for the owners of inefficient cars to buy new cars in order to provide support to the ailing auto industry. (The old cars were later destroyed.) Sure, the stimulus plan and cash-for-clunkers may have created a few jobs in the short-term and it may make certain industries appear as if they are thriving and prosperous. However, it is important to note that such artificial growth will be unsustainable after the government funds run out and will have sapped business from other industries that individuals might have patronized instead. There is little that we can do to stop these programs now; however, it might do us all a bit of good to give credence to the wisdom those who have gone before us have left for us to consider. Just like the shopkeeper had to admonish his son about throwing stones, so must we challenge the conventional “wisdom” of our legislators who often promote short-term fixes to long-term problems.

Your Money Spent Wisely

2009-11-17T14:23:00.000-08:00

By Thomas Laughlin

As students get a rare, first-hand experience of rising costs, in the form of rising tuition and fees, during a recession, one might wonder where that extra money goes. In fact, your fees primarily go to the University as a whole to pay for a variety of things and people. However, not all of those vaguely-named fees are allocated appropriately and responsibly.

The Activities and Services Fee is one of those fees that has a name that, while concise, doesn’t really provide much information as to how that $9.97 per credit hour ($10.47 next year) obtained from every undergraduate and graduate student is spent. While the fee is, after all, the student bodies’ money to be used on activities and services like the Leach Center, Homecoming, etc., it is also being used as a direct source of funding for some less conspicuous purchases.

Going over the Excel spreadsheets available on the Student Government Association website, one can peruse all of the different expenditures made by various agencies, RSOs, and the like. Among the hundreds of recent expenditures, there are the routine expenses for the myriad events held by different organizations all over campus. This is why the A&S Fee was created. Upon further inspection there are some more noticeable big-ticket items that aren’t for any student organization event or expense.

In just the last few months since the beginning of this academic year, the heads of your student legislative and executive branches have spent over $2000 to send a couple students to a conference in Polk County, $2148 for food at an SGA awareness event, and an astonishing $9000 for towels that you may or may not have received during the FSU vs. USF home game this season. On top of these examples there are tens of thousands of dollars that have been allocated by the SGA Senate for food costs and facility rentals of various groups.

The items stated above are just a few examples of the outrageous, reckless, and unchecked use of the students’ money for some desires of a relatively small group of individuals. Unlike the convoluted and bureaucratic process student organizations must go through to acquire funding, the heads of the SGA didn’t have to jump through as many hoops to get your money. And when they see the opportunity to take more of your money, they do. According to Bobby Seifter, a junior here at FSU and former Student Senate President, we have “a certain lifestyle” to maintain on this campus – even if it comes at the expense of the average student. For an itemized list of SGA expenses please see the SGA Budgets tab: http://sga.fsu.edu/