That, of course, excludes every-day Americans who are (I’m sure) increasingly worried about bursting budgets and their decreased ability to spend on non-essential items – such as buying their first home, taking that first trip to Disneyland (which they already promised their kids), or maybe simply buying a new car to replace their old clunker.

Sob stories aside, what has frustrated me the most is the considerable ease in which this issue could be fixed.  If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates or the Congress stops spending money on credit the dollar will be strengthened and prices will fall.  Instead, we’re fed the same nonsense over and over about job growth and economic growth.

Sure, jobs are opening up and one could argue the economy is growing – albeit slowly – but those facts are at best psychological help to the 8.8% of Americans still unemployed.  Those 8.8% are left stranded as their savings are eroded faster and faster by prices continuing to rise.

Charities (the kind that might help the hungry, homeless and jobless, for example) too are left out in the cold as requests for aid increase while their spending power decreases.

Which brings us to this article from Steve Leisman at CNBC, who misses the point entirely.  The fact is, we’re not facing inflation (which he cleverly points out) but a full-blown dollar crisis (which he less-cleverly misses).  If you doubt this, simply look at long-term charts for commodities, precious metals in particular.

According to the Fed and CNBC, food and fuel prices are not increasing due to inflation but rather increasing demand from developing economies growing and consuming too quickly.  Saudi Arabia disagrees (and rightly so) with this outlook, deciding to cut output of crude oil due to excessive supply.

Inflation?

While consumers haven’t seen any large-scale increase in prices (CPI increased by a humble 0.5% last month) that is simply because, for the most part, the large-scale increase in prices hasn’t happened yet, just like how October, 12^th 2011 hasn’t happened yet.

Retailers have already admitted that the cost of clothing will rise – by upwards of 10% – ‘in coming months’ because of record-high cotton costs.  Rising cotton costs will also lead to higher prices in domestic products (such as sheets and towels) and industries which heavily rely them (such as Hotels, who have already seen their linen costs begin to rise).

It’s the currency, stupid!

What I feel most ‘mainstream’ economics exclude from their calculations is the increasing power of both the Chinese Yuan and the Japanese Yen – which represent two major sources of goods imported into the U.S. economy.

Sure, the Yen lost some ground last month after the Tsunami, but overall since April 30^th of last year the Yen has gained over 12% against the dollar.  Though, how much consumer prices on items using Japanese microchips (of which they’re a major supplier) will rise because of the Yen’s new found power, as opposed to shortages due to the continuing disaster in the country, is something only time will tell.  Personally, I will leave that to the speculators.

The Chinese Yuan is a much more interesting story.  During the recession, it was officially pegged at roughly 6.82 Yuan to the Dollar and has only recently begun to continue it’s gains.  What is shocking about the Yuan’s gains is that it comes at a time when China is facing it’s own inflationary woes.  I believe that needs to be repeated, the Yuan is gaining strength against the Dollar while at the same time, losing strength in it’s home country.  Considering the range of products imported into the United States from China, this is an absolutely terrifying thing to be happening.

Lastly I would like to briefly mention America’s largest trading partner, Canada.  For some time, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than it’s American counter part.  This might lead to the question: “why haven’t prices begun to rise more sharply already?”  To make a long story short, prices on products imported from Canada have risen, but since the US mainly imports commodities (such as food and energy) from Canada, they’re not included in the CPI.

Naturally, I’m against this.  I’m not against these programs because my dollars are going to the hungry, or the poor, or the sick.  My dollars should be going to the needy regardless of whether or not it is through a government program.

I have issues with these programs because they remove the ideas of agency from charity.  These programs, in my mind, are no different than forcibly denying individuals the ability to marry within the same gender.  It destroys agency.  Period.

Without question “men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause” but these good causes must be done out “of their own free will.”

Please feel free to debate this in the comments.

Extreme regulations in the corporate ecosystem will only result in a catastrophic rates of unemployment and a decrease in entrepreneurship.

(That is not to say corporations should be free to do as they will, they ought to be, and are, bound to laws and regulations the same way individuals are bound to laws and regulations.)

However, creating a system where wages are controlled by an arbitrarily will eventually cause an economy to fail; this has happened time and time again, even in “capitalist” societies in the West.

CEO salaries should not be curtailed by the Government, but rather the shareholders which legally own the company.  Shareholder complacency is the leading cause of outrageous increases in CEO salaries and benefits.  Shareholders should vote out boards which suck up too much of the corporate wealth.

Forcing the company to keep employees wages tied, by any number, will simply not work as one might hope.

On the other major point:

“The greater question, is there another way to look at taxes and corporations that is more representative of how citizens can make the system (taxes and corporate charters) work in favor of the citizenery.[sic]”

There seems to be a common misconception going around that all corporations, by their very nature, are evil and should be abolished.  Not so!

I’ll admin the regulations governing major corporations have speedily decreased while those on small businesses and individuals have increased, but that is a systemic issue relating far more to Congress and the President, rather than the corporations themselves.  Free markets and corporations have created the wealth, and in some cases freedoms, we enjoy today.

Regulations must continue to decrease for major corporations, but also for the common man.  Decreasing the number of laws and statutes which every individual must follow will level the playing field much faster, and provide much greater results, than increasing the regulations on corporations.

(The one major area I’ll contradict myself in is the “Citizens United” case, but that isn’t really related to this post.)

Warren Redlich (Libertarian)

Warren Redlich is the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of New York.  Unlike Palidino and Cuomo, Redlich understands the ideas and principles of liberty.  He supports an immense cut in public spending, requiring a referendum to increase public servant pay, and, most importantly, understands that a cap on property taxes is useless.

Attorney General

Dan Donovan (Republican, Conservative)

State Comptroller

Harry Wilson (Republican, Independence, Conservative)

Harry Wilson was on the  U.S. treasury group which reformed Chrysler and General Motors.

Senator (Unexpired Two Years of Secretary Clinton’s Term)

Joseph DioGuardi (Republican, Conservative, Taxpayers)

Senator (Full Six Year Term)

Jay Townsend (Republican, Conservative)

Townsend is truly ‘the best of the worst’ candidate running for this office.  He supports additional Nuclear Power plants but sadly also supports a property tax cap, without necessarily supporting drastic cuts in spending.

U.S. Representative for the 29th District

Matthew Zeller (Democratic, Working Families)

State Senator for the 55th District

Mary Wilmont (Democratic)

State Assemblyman for the 135th District

Mark Johns (Republican, Conservative)

I would like to propose the idea that we should lower the corporate tax in this country. At, up to, 39% the taxes corporations pay in the United States (assuming they pay them) is higher than what they would face in the ‘tax happy’ Europe. But the relatively higher taxes is not the point.

Corporations have no source of income other than the customer which they serve. We the people pay their taxes every time we purchase a good or service.

Of course nobody is never excited about decreasing corporate taxes (why? I have no idea) but it is a step which must be done, not only to improve the competativity of the American marketplace, but also to lower the cost of living on the American populace; that we might not have to pay a 35% ‘hidden’ tax every time we need to buy clothes, food, shelter, or any number of other items which we desire or need.

But would a broad taxation of religion do any good? No.

Regardless of what you believe, there are quite a few churches which help their surrounding communities. Taxing churches can only hurt those who are in need of aid by decreasing funding for food, clothing, and counseling currently offered by theological institutions. San Francisco has learned the hard way that it is better to run churches offer programs than attempt a state takeover.

—

Maybe one should consider taxing not-for-profit charities. A rather foolish idea until one looks at the salaries involved in running a charity. Take for example, the American Red Cross, probably the most well-known charity in the United States. According to the latest numbers available their CEO earns an impressive $446,867 per year.

Brian Gallagher, the CEO of the United Way, rakes in an even more astonishing figure. He was paid $982, 768; keep in mind his salary is funded by donations and grants to the United Way organization, the same way the pastor of a mega-church earns money from donations.

Yet, even as charities are shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on their CEOs, does anyone doubt their worthiness to be tax exempt? No.

Keep in mind that charities also spend money on their fundraising activities. In 2008 the Saint Louis Zoo Foundation spent $975,375 on such activities while only spending slightly more ($990,853) on all of their programs combined. Factor in the $821,766 spent on administration and all of a sudden, the Saint Louis Zoo Foundation only spent 35% of their operational budget on their programs.

Still, should charities become taxed organizations? No, because the overwhelming majority are responsible organizations which help the community. A few bad eggs have and always will exist; it is irrational to impose blanket taxes on all charities because of the actions of a few.

—

Why then, should we tax the churches?

It seems that, at least, a main argument is that churches sometimes require individuals receiving benefits to adhere the certain religions guidelines – such as saying a prayer before eating a free meal at a soup kitchen. Wouldn’t taxing those churches which have that requirement be a violation of the first amendment? That would effectively put a regulation on churches and how followers practice their religion.

Even with the arguments above, isn’t the idea churches have a right to their own doctrine enough to stop this foolish tax?

It is also very important to realize rights are neither mutually exclusive or require sacrifice on any individuals part; that is to say, neither those exercising or waiving their rights are required to pay or give any item of value for those rights to be maintained.*

For example, with the right to free speech (in fairness, this is through constraining government) any individual has the inherit ability to think and inform others about their thoughts – regardless of how popular those thoughts may be to the state or other individuals.

The same may be said for the right to bear arms.  Every human has the right to defend him or herself with whatever armaments the situation may require.  This, like all rights, may only be removed by force from the State or other authoritarian figure.

Entitlements, on the other hand, are typically what (usually “progressive”) individuals believe should be rights but fail to meet the most basic of requirements.  Unlike rights, which are given the Higher Power, entitlements are conferred upon humanity from the State – typically with some other individual paying the – sometimes literal – cost.

For example, Finland recently declared broadband internet access is a fundamental human right.  While I would agree right to free information is a right** the that broadband internet access is a right is foolish.  The hardware and software infrastructures which power the networks involved cannot be maintained at zero cost, which is where the problem lies.

The irony of this so-called right is it requires individuals to lose free access to their income.  The vendors involved require payment which will paid for through the taxation of the working class – thus diminishing a true right to the fruits of an individual’s labor.

The same could be said for any other entitlement, including Medical coverage; doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies and so on all require payment which must be paid through the taxation of the populace.

It is because taxation – or any other form of payment – destroys true, inherit, rights we must never let entitlements corrupt our system of laws.  Entitlements are an attractive menace; truly they are wolf in sheep’s clothing.

* There is an obvious exception in regards to tyranny and slavery.  However, in this country we have been blessed by the bravery and selflessness of those have come before us who have freed us from such crimes.

**Free information is a ‘”reverse right,” so to speak.  In order for free speech to be maintained, individuals must be able to acquire speeches, texts, or other documents produced by other individuals.

As much as I dislike Toyota I can’t deny their safety, reliability, and durability achievements.  Even the guys at Top Gear couldn’t destroy an old (and I mean old) pick up; and considering Top Gear, that’s quite an accomplishment.

Should you get into an accident your Toyota will likely protect you.  The Camry has a 5 star crash rating in every single category.  That’s pretty gosh-darn safe!

I emphasized should for a reason.  The real Toyota question should be:

Are Toyota Drivers Safe?

No.

As it turns out Toyota owners rank the absolute worst when it comes to “safe driving;” that is to say, they get into the most vehicle crashes.

Out of the, rather large, Toyota driver pool, there is one segment that seems to be particularly prone to sudden acceleration incidents: old people.

Lets look at some very real statistics about driver age from the kind folks over at OutLawyered.com

Drivers age where available or inferred in cases of sudden acceleration:

18, 21, 21*, 20s**, 32, 34, 36, 44, 45, 47, 56, 56, 57, 58, 60, 60, 63, 60s***, 66, 68, 71, 72, 72, 75, 75, 77, 77, 79, 83, 87
*Driver was with 21-year-old friend
**Driver had girlfriend and young daughter
***Driver was picking up 67-year-old friend for church.

A few things to point out: first, the median age in that group is 60.  Second, a majority of those individuals are at – or over – the median age.  Third, in two of the cases where 20-somethings are involved friends are in the car.  Statistically, young people are more apt to crash with friends than older drivers.

Something everyone should note is that sudden acceleration of vehicles isn’t rare, isn’t exclusive to Toyotas, and – I can’t stress this enough – is primarily caused by human error.

General Motors and Audi have both faced sudden acceleration issues in the past.  In both “major” previous cases the NHTSA explicitly stated the problem was not with a defect but rather “pedal misapplication” – which in layman’s terms means stepping on the gas instead of the brake.

But then, there is the smoking gun; the perfect piece of evidence proving Toyota has a really big problem: Jim Sikes’s runaway Prius. I’ll just leave off with these.

As the title would suggest, I wish I had a studio; “o rly” one might say.  I came to this conclusion after trying to find a place to start brainstorming a competition I came across.  The project, to design a music studio in Haiti, seems like something I would like to be a part of.

But alas, like I said I have a problem.  I have no where to really do anything; my desk, which realistically is the only place to write or draw in loose-leaf paper, houses my computer and mountains of papers that have no rational storage elsewhere.

The only other hard surface in my room is my dresser, which is where my light is.  Not necessarily a problem in itself but once said light is turned on the brightness is overwhelming.  Plus there are other things stored on my dresser as well, which puts the actual surface space down to about zero anyway.

So what am I to do?  Nothing, I suppose.  I can’t really change the fact I don’t have anywhere else to put this stuff (a lot of which isn’t even mine, by the way) nor can I change the fact I can’t just add more surfaces to my room.  It isn’t nearly big enough.  If I had more money, I could add collapsible surfaces, but, alas, I’m a relatively poor college student.

Oh well.  I suppose I’ll simply continue to mope about all the stuff I need.  Its either that or actually getting the things I need – but that’s to hard.

Of course, I’m sure my position – or even the fact I have a position – on this issue will shock people.  I mean, as I Mormon never having a drink in my life supporting increased liquor sales?  Of course that isn’t normal!  But the issue at hand isn’t necessarily about wine or liquor but rather is about the supermarkets’ proprietor’s freedom to sell what they think their clients want.

I can understand why it failed; the liquor stores will – should the measure pass – face a decrease in sales.  That will, of course, cause the state senators and assemblymen/women problems during their re-election campaign.  Not gunna lie, kind of a bad reason to vote against something that will help consumers and the state coffers, but whatever.

Anyway, moving on; the biggest reason why the liquor store owners (aka The Last Store on Main Street – how subtle) are against this bill is that they will inevitably go completely out of business due to big grocers selling wine at a cheaper price and at greater convenience. Huh.  Run-on sentence aside, there really isn’t that much I can say to defend that statement.

Second, is the concern supermarkets will primarily sell wine grown outside New York.  According to an MPNNow article a review of the wine menu at Wegman’s Next Door Bar and Grill shows less than 5% of the wines available are produced within the State border.  I’m curious how much wine this group thinks New York State makes.  New York doesn’t produce the most wine in the United States.  We don’t even come in second place.  New York holds the high honor of third biggest wine producer. In the United States. Woot?

The shear fact of the matter is the Next Door Bar and Grill holds a spectacular percentage of New York wines.  Of course, it could be higher but when the United States as a country only holds a 3.8% market share on wine exports having a 5% of your menu devoted to local wines isn’t bad at all.  Even if only 3% of the wines available for purchase are made in New York, that is still more than – statistically speaking – should be available based on wine produced.

The last store on main street is also concerned stores will close and jobs will be lost.  No doubt stores will close but as grocery stores add new product they will need to hire new employees trained in wine.  If they don’t, liquor stores which remain open will have an intellect advantage and may even see improved sales as convenience shoppers move into the premium market.

As to the amount of store closings, I can’t say for sure.  Based on the shear amount of liquor stores (I can think of at least 5 right along the Pittsford/Perinton border) the damage will likely be minimal.  Perhaps, should grocers start selling wine, there will only be 3 or 4 in this tiny patch of land; but like I said, I can’t say for sure.

In conclusion, the market for wine is huge in the United States; the average American drinks 7-15 liters per year.  The shear fact of the matter is, grocer can’t devote enough shelf space to truly capture the market.  “Small” stores, with the ability to devote huge amounts of shelf space to wine, will still have a place in the market and still employee knowledgeable staff to help customers.