I’m guessing no.  There is no service I provide here anymore – rarely do I even update the site.  So you tell me.  Keep it or trash it?

Before you click on anything make sure you know where you’re going.  If you don’t recognize the website, you should avoid going there.  The website you’re about to visit is displayed right below the title of the post, as demonstrated by the image below.

Due to the nature of attack, once you click the link your Facebook feed is compromised immediately.  This is due to a flaw in the Facebook architecture, nothing can protect you once you visit an infected website.

Remember you can always delete a malicious post by clicking the “x” in the upper-right hand corner of a post while hovering over it, as demonstrated by the image below.

In closing, just be careful out there. If something looks suspicious too good to be true, it probably is. Just because Facebook is big and powerful, doesn’t make it safe, so be careful what you click!

The Word of Wisdom, for those who don’t know, lays out the dietary guidelines for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Word of Wisdom describes alcoholic beverages and tobacco as ‘not for the body’ while also declaring grains (wheat, specifically) to be the staff of life.

There are finer points to these each of the guidelines, but I intend to focus on one line which has fascinated me for the past several months.

Buried, it seems, within the verses describing which grain is best for what animal is the phrase ‘barley […] for mild drinks.’  That line seems to suggest there is a scriptural difference between strong drinks (such as wine or distilled liquor) and beer (which is derived from barley).

It seems anyone looking for an excuse to drink might have one found within the same section of the Doctrine and Covenants cited by church authorities on why we shouldn’t drink.  Oh, doesn’t God have an incredible sense of irony?

Why, then, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not allowed to drink beer?

The answer is relatively simple: times have changed and beer is no longer a necessity to survive daily life.

It is only recently in the history of humanity that clean drinking water and a readily available supply of food been available to so many.  During the 19th century, when the Word of Wisdom was given, beer was an absolute staple of life.  According to Scientific American, it was as important as bread to our ancestors.  One prominent 18th century Prussian went so far as to condemn coffee as it might economically hurt breweries (and his ability to fight wars, but that is another story).

To our ancestors, beer provided more than just a clean supply of fluids.  It was a cheap and effective source of calories in a period where food supplies were always at risk.  It was the aspirin of it’s day.  Lastly, and most hilariously, it provided a relief from the boredom and drudgery that was rampant in our history.

In our lives of abundance all of beer’s functions are superseded by things which do the job better.  Water, food, aspirin, and entertainment are, for the most part, easily accessible to the general population.

Ultimately, as beer no longer has any useful function, all that is left are the negatives.  Alcohol is a poison and it destroys our judgment.  I think out of all the other side effects of beer, the loss of judgment it creates is the single biggest reason beer consumption is prohibited by the church.

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.

(Update: skreemr has closed.  The song is no longer available.)

The wicked piano riffs make it something worth listening to over and over again.

From the album: “The Crash Kings”

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?