Economics @ MindSay

Most of America's mothers will go to work tomorrow instead of spending the time providing educational, loving, and supportive means in raising their children.

but remember...

NOBODY FORCES YOU TO WORK FOR THEM!!

I have encountered the same problem as Andrew Austin, and I'm gonna copy his post on the issue.

From Freedom and Reason

Is this the Mother of all Dumb Arguments? Could Very Well Be.

I am being criticized for my criticisms of capitalism on the ridiculous grounds that I live in a capitalist society. It's a bizarre criticism, but I have faced it before.

The basic argument is that because I buy things I support capitalism. I don't know why those who make this argument do not immediately recognize how completely absurd it is.

True, I support capitalism in a material sense when I buy things, but that's not support in the sense that I promote capitalism or that I have a desire that it succeed. I support capitalism materially because I am forced to. I live in a capitalist society by misfortune of birth. I didn't choose it.

Slaves supported the system of slavery on these grounds, since their labor is what made the system of slavery possible. Slaves accepted food, housing, medicine, indeed everything from the slave owner. They had to. They had no choice. It's called surviving.

Likewise, I have no choice under capitalism but to buy food and medicine, pay rent, and so forth. This reality of the situation is in fact one of the central reason why capitalism and every other exploitative system is wrong.

If I were forced to contribute my labor to a society in which the workers owned and controlled the means of production, that would be one thing. Every society in history has required those who could work to work for the betterment of the community. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." I would even settle for "From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution," with some social provision for those who cannot produce enough for themselves, of course (you know, children, the disabled, the elderly).

But under capitalism, I am forced to contribute my labor to, and obtain necessary items from a class of non-workers who monopolize the means of production. Capitalism is in essence a system in which people who don't work live of the labor of those who do - and they live even better than the producers do.

Being forced to contribute to such an unjust arrangement is what's wrong with capitalism.

It isn't supporting capitalism to be forced to live in it any more than prisoners support prisons.

Frankly, I would be embarrassed to have made such a stupid argument.

Have you ever wondered why the standard terms for mortgages are 15 and 30 years rather than 10 and 20 or 25 and 50?  I have, but was never able to find a satisfactory answer. Then I discovered something interesting. Since this country was founded, downturns in the economy have occurred on an average of once every 14.5 years. This similarity may, of course, be sheer coincidence. But I'm suspicious.

Why?

Well, if you amortize a standard 30 year mortgage at six percent interest, you'll discover that the lender gets all of the money it has invested back in 13 years and 11 months.

Now look at what happens to a home buyer who takes out a mortgage just after an economic downturn, pays on it for 14 years, a downturn strikes, and then for whatever reason cannot sell his home and defaults. The lender gets the house and the buyer has lost all the money he/she has put into it.

But look at what happens to the lender. It has already gotten its initial investment back, so in reality it loses nothing. But now it has a house to sell. How much has the lender paid for this house? Nothing! So it sells the house to another buyer by providing another mortgage. Now if the initial buyer had continued to pay the loan to term, the lender would have earned about as much as the initial investment. But now everything the second buyer pays is pure profit, not just the computed interest. In reality, the total amount of the mortgage loan is earned interest on an investment of zero. Wouldn't you like to find a way of doing that?

Of course, such situations don't come about often. Although the average time between economic downturns is 14.5 years, downturns happen at varied intervals. And even in downturns, many people forced to sell their homes usually can. But it doesn't take many who can't to make lenders a lot of money. Just five people forced into the situation described with $100,000 loans would net a lender a hefty one million free dollars. If the loans are larger, the lender nets even more. And, of course, the numbers are different for different interest rates. But the principle is the same. Lenders almost always get their initial investments back in half a loan's term or less.  

©2009 John Kozy

Here is a great video concerning optimistic evolution from Reason.  Pay attention to when Ridley discusses the influences of Adam Smith and other early economists on Darwin.

I wonder, if women ruled the world ( every country ruled by women) would  there be war? Would the economy be better? Would education be better? Would it be any different all all or more of the same? Would it be worse?
I know I hate war and violence but in a mans world it seems to have become necessary. Would women be more likely to talk, work it out over a latte? Women like to talk more than men. would we be better negotiators?
Are most women better economizers since they  are usually in charge of the families budget?
What are your thoughts? Would women make better world leaders?