Ok now that I have your attention let’s take a look at the merits of the question. The USDA stated that: “children who were born in 2010 will cost a middle-income family nearly $227,000.” The kicker — that number does not include college tuition. This lays waste to the notion that buying a house is the largest investment a person will make since most households have 2 children correlating to nearly half a million dollars to raise your children to age 18. When looking purely at the cost it becomes evident what a huge undertaking it is to have children. What is not accounted for in the $227,000 is the time a parent spends, well, parenting. Between potty-training, practices, games, first days of school, illness, bandaging a skinned knee, and fixing a wounded heart, parenting has to be the hardest most versatile job in the world. Why then can anyone simply have a drunken lapse in judgment one night and enter into this massive financial and emotional agreement with another human who has no say in the matter?
In order to buy a house you don’t need a license but your life is scrutinized by the bank(s) in order to ensure they are issuing a mortgage to a creditworthy individual. In order for you to drive to work today you had to prove you could competently operate a vehicle. Gun owners need a license, adding a room to your house needs a permit, and in order to get married you must obtain a marriage license. Let that soak in for a minute. Over and over again the government wants you to get their “approval” for you to live how you want to live. (1)
Why has the government not stepped in and required that soon to be parents be competent parents in order to retain their baby after birth? I reason because there’s nothing more un-American than intervening in the family but government does by not allowing homosexuals to marry. People just hate the idea of big government looking over their shoulder and telling them how to live, but does the welfare of these unwanted, unloved children out weigh our beliefs that government should not intervene in our family?
There’s a lot of research on child “un-wantedness” and tremendous historical data sets from social science of the last fifty years that suggest that if your mother doesn’t love you, nothing good will happen to you in life. The over-riding factor for having a kid who turns out well is the kid being loved. Why not ensure the child will be raised in a caring loving home? Won’t that be best for society as a whole since that will ensure the best chance at the child succeeding and not becoming a bane to society?
The license acquisition should be based on factors like:
How do you interact with children?
Can you change a diaper?
Can you make a bottle?
Can you balance a checkbook?
I’m sure there are other basic activities I am omitting that a good early education specialist would think of. Basic home economics that a parent needs to know and have before a child is put into their care. The licenses should not be dependent on income since income level is not a determining factor in loving a child. The licensing should only be a nominal fee of $50 or less.
Unintended Consequences or How to Beat the System
How will the “unfit” soon to be parents get around being licensing? One situation that comes to mind is that these unlicensed, soon to be parents, would deliver their children outside of hospitals. This leads to lack of quality health care during delivery and post delivery. The lack of quality health care would not be in the best interest of the child’s welfare, which is what the licensing is for anyway. There are numerous ways in which the licensing can be avoided by these “unfit” parents. For a more comprehensive review on how to implement and how the licensing can be avoided please visit: http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/lic-par.htm
I do not believe this licensing process will happen soon (20 years), but it will happen, along with one-child and/or no-child policies, much sooner than any of us want to imagine. Way back in 1798 the great economist Thomas Robert Malthus wrote about the way in which the planet will become over populated in An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus accumulated data on births, deaths, age of marriage, childbearing and economic factors contributing to longevity from a sample population in England. His main contribution was to highlight the relationship between resource supply and population. Humans do not overpopulate to the point of stripping resources, he contended, only because people change their behavior in the face of economic incentives. This licensing process will be a way to curb the rampant over population that is stripping the earth of non-renewable resources occurring now.
I believe that by conducting the cost benefit analysis of licensing soon to be parents it makes great sense for this licensing process to be implemented. The licensing will generate revenue, the parents can be held accountable for the decision they made to make a human life, and most importantly the child will raised in an environment that will allow the best chance for success for that child. As an economist I have to take the emotion and ideologies out of the argument and argue for or against the data. Sometimes you have to look at the unconscionable and realize that it is what needs to be done for the benefit of the whole. The over population of this planet is a huge concern that will be addressed by the global economic powers within my lifetime. It is time to begin thinking through this scenario reasonably and develop an effective and humane way to deal with this epidemic. I think the first step in the right direction is to have parents licensed in order to ensure the greatest chance of success for all parties involved.
(1) I know there are folks who do not want the Government to require permits and licenses for things like owning a gun and building permits, but there is no political party that will stop these because of the revenue they generate.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Sunday, April 19, 2009
I told a few of you...
Im not saying I'm just saying. Some people asked me about what to do with their 401(k)'s back in Feb and Mar and I said max out contributions. Some people did and some people stopped contributing. Those who contributed should be able to retire a little sooner than those who didn't.....You're welcome.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Been a While...
I know it has been forever since I last posted but you wil soon see the fruits of my absence. Here is an article I found interesting from NYU professor Nouriel Roubini.
Like Lou Holtz said, "Things are never as bad as they, and things are never as good as they seem, but somewhere in the middle you can find the truth."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/04/roubini-end-of-gloom.html
Like Lou Holtz said, "Things are never as bad as they, and things are never as good as they seem, but somewhere in the middle you can find the truth."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/04/roubini-end-of-gloom.html
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Vacation
Had the annual break of spring last week. Was nice relief but now the rubber hits the road with my classes. Two regression models to present and a cost benefit analysis of terrorist attacks, all due in three weeks. Yes I know its my fault I'm a procrastinator but my middle name is pressure. Postings will pick up in May as I finish my time here a Valdosta State University.
Oh I guess you wanted something relevant.....
How about this from Paul Krugman discussing Keynes.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/ive-got-keynes-right-here/
Oh I guess you wanted something relevant.....
How about this from Paul Krugman discussing Keynes.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/ive-got-keynes-right-here/
Monday, March 16, 2009
Bernanke Interview
From Professor Perry's blog "Carpe Diem" the 60 Minutes Interview with Ben Bernanke.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-case-you-missed-it-bernanke-on-60.html
I think Bernanke was outstanding in this interview. Cool, calm, collect, making sure people know he is working on this issue night and day and making sure he uses every available tool he can.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-case-you-missed-it-bernanke-on-60.html
I think Bernanke was outstanding in this interview. Cool, calm, collect, making sure people know he is working on this issue night and day and making sure he uses every available tool he can.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Manifesto
Here is a founding principle of the neo-Keynesian economic movement. From Gregory Mankiw, Economics Professor at Harvard
The Pigou Club Manifesto
In today's Wall Street Journal, I offer a manifesto for the Pigou Club, the elite group of pundits and policy wonks with the good sense to advocate higher Pigovian taxes. (Click here for a partial membership list.)
Raise the Gas Tax
By N. Gregory Mankiw
With the midterm election around the corner, here's a wacky idea you won't often hear from our elected leaders: We should raise the tax on gasoline. Not quickly, but substantially. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade. Campaign consultants aren't fond of this kind of proposal, but policy wonks keep pushing for it. Here's why:
The environment. The burning of gasoline emits several pollutants. These include carbon dioxide, a cause of global warming. Higher gasoline taxes, perhaps as part of a broader carbon tax, would be the most direct and least invasive policy to address environmental concerns.
Road congestion. Every time I am stuck in traffic, I wish my fellow motorists would drive less, perhaps by living closer to where they work or by taking public transport. A higher gas tax would give all of us the incentive to do just that, reducing congestion on streets and highways.
Regulatory relief. Congress has tried to reduce energy dependence with corporate average fuel economy standards. These CAFE rules are heavy-handed government regulations replete with unintended consequences: They are partly responsible for the growth of SUVs, because light trucks have laxer standards than cars. In addition, by making the car fleet more fuel-efficient, the regulations encourage people to drive more, offsetting some of the conservation benefits and exacerbating road congestion. A higher gas tax would accomplish everything CAFE standards do, but without the adverse side effects.
The budget. Everyone who has studied the numbers knows that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. When baby-boomers retire and become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, either benefits for the elderly will have to be cut or taxes raised. The most likely political compromise will include some of each. A $1 per gallon hike in gas tax would bring in $100 billion a year in government revenue and make a dent in the looming fiscal gap.
Tax incidence. A basic principle of tax analysis -- taught in most freshman economics courses -- is that the burden of a tax is shared by consumer and producer. In this case, as a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Economic growth. Public finance experts have long preached that consumption taxes are better than income taxes for long-run economic growth, because income taxes discourage saving and investment. Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes.
National security. Alan Greenspan called for higher gas taxes recently. "It's a national security issue," he said. It is hard to judge how much high oil consumption drives U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern politics. But Mr. Greenspan may well be right that the gas tax is an economic policy with positive spillovers to foreign affairs.
Is it conceivable that the policy wonks will ever win the battle with the campaign consultants? I think it is. Even after a $1 hike, the U.S. gas tax would still be less than half the level in, say, Great Britain, which last I checked is still a democracy. But don't expect those vying for office to come around until the American people recognize that while higher gas taxes are unattractive, the alternatives are even worse.
Update: Here and here.
The Pigou Club Manifesto
In today's Wall Street Journal, I offer a manifesto for the Pigou Club, the elite group of pundits and policy wonks with the good sense to advocate higher Pigovian taxes. (Click here for a partial membership list.)
Raise the Gas Tax
By N. Gregory Mankiw
With the midterm election around the corner, here's a wacky idea you won't often hear from our elected leaders: We should raise the tax on gasoline. Not quickly, but substantially. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade. Campaign consultants aren't fond of this kind of proposal, but policy wonks keep pushing for it. Here's why:
The environment. The burning of gasoline emits several pollutants. These include carbon dioxide, a cause of global warming. Higher gasoline taxes, perhaps as part of a broader carbon tax, would be the most direct and least invasive policy to address environmental concerns.
Road congestion. Every time I am stuck in traffic, I wish my fellow motorists would drive less, perhaps by living closer to where they work or by taking public transport. A higher gas tax would give all of us the incentive to do just that, reducing congestion on streets and highways.
Regulatory relief. Congress has tried to reduce energy dependence with corporate average fuel economy standards. These CAFE rules are heavy-handed government regulations replete with unintended consequences: They are partly responsible for the growth of SUVs, because light trucks have laxer standards than cars. In addition, by making the car fleet more fuel-efficient, the regulations encourage people to drive more, offsetting some of the conservation benefits and exacerbating road congestion. A higher gas tax would accomplish everything CAFE standards do, but without the adverse side effects.
The budget. Everyone who has studied the numbers knows that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. When baby-boomers retire and become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, either benefits for the elderly will have to be cut or taxes raised. The most likely political compromise will include some of each. A $1 per gallon hike in gas tax would bring in $100 billion a year in government revenue and make a dent in the looming fiscal gap.
Tax incidence. A basic principle of tax analysis -- taught in most freshman economics courses -- is that the burden of a tax is shared by consumer and producer. In this case, as a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Economic growth. Public finance experts have long preached that consumption taxes are better than income taxes for long-run economic growth, because income taxes discourage saving and investment. Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes.
National security. Alan Greenspan called for higher gas taxes recently. "It's a national security issue," he said. It is hard to judge how much high oil consumption drives U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern politics. But Mr. Greenspan may well be right that the gas tax is an economic policy with positive spillovers to foreign affairs.
Is it conceivable that the policy wonks will ever win the battle with the campaign consultants? I think it is. Even after a $1 hike, the U.S. gas tax would still be less than half the level in, say, Great Britain, which last I checked is still a democracy. But don't expect those vying for office to come around until the American people recognize that while higher gas taxes are unattractive, the alternatives are even worse.
Update: Here and here.
I'm not a techie, but....
A big part of economics is information mobility, could this be perfect information mobility?
http://www.break.com/index/really-cool-new-sixth-sense-technology.html
Off the top of my head I know it has some work left to make it as useful as the iphone or a blackberry, but once this is made more user friendly and less bulky this will be the next wave of immediate and on demand information producer.
http://www.break.com/index/really-cool-new-sixth-sense-technology.html
Off the top of my head I know it has some work left to make it as useful as the iphone or a blackberry, but once this is made more user friendly and less bulky this will be the next wave of immediate and on demand information producer.
From the Horses Mouth
All of a sudden Jamie Dimon, Vikram Pandit, and Ken Lewis have come out of relative hiding to announce that their companies, JP Morgan, Citi, and Bank of America respectively, are now turning a profit. These announcements bother me in a couple of ways.
One, if they turned a profit in January and February where were they in February saying they had become profitable and their stock prices were plummeting. It seems to me tat they may have gotten a small little elbow nudge from the Treasury to get out in the public eye and let the public know the TARP is working.
Two, and most importantly, these are the same people who ran us into this mess and they are turning a profit. That should go to show you how easy it is to make money as a bank in these times. With all the money being given out to banks from the government and the flight to safety people are having out of equities and into more secure liquid assests its no wonder they are finally making a profit.
We will see how long it lasts.
One, if they turned a profit in January and February where were they in February saying they had become profitable and their stock prices were plummeting. It seems to me tat they may have gotten a small little elbow nudge from the Treasury to get out in the public eye and let the public know the TARP is working.
Two, and most importantly, these are the same people who ran us into this mess and they are turning a profit. That should go to show you how easy it is to make money as a bank in these times. With all the money being given out to banks from the government and the flight to safety people are having out of equities and into more secure liquid assests its no wonder they are finally making a profit.
We will see how long it lasts.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
MIA
I was missing for so long because of my birthday on the 4th. A year older a year wiser, and I still have no idea how to fix the housing problem.
Here is a little something to chew on for the day. Overall fiscal stimulus offered up by Congress since the recession has begun is around 4 trillion, and I never thought I would say this, give or take a few billion. Ehhh whats a few billion between friends. Here is what a trillion looks like.....
$1 Million
$1 Trillion (see the guy in the bottom left corner)
(http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html)
Here is a little something to chew on for the day. Overall fiscal stimulus offered up by Congress since the recession has begun is around 4 trillion, and I never thought I would say this, give or take a few billion. Ehhh whats a few billion between friends. Here is what a trillion looks like.....
$1 Million
$1 Trillion (see the guy in the bottom left corner)
(http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)