Mr. Jefferey Tucker of Laissez-Faire Books, http://lfb.org/, meaning Free-Market Books, published an article today (linked here) expressing his view on this event, one that was attacked by many, including Wired.com which wrote that it “sounds like something out of a darkly satirical science-fiction dystopia.” ReadWriteWeb called it a “blunt display of unselfconscious gall.”  However, Mr. Tucker took it differently and after copy and pasting what I found as the most important part of the article, I’ll express my own opinion.

What seems to be in question was the use by BBH Labs, an advertising agency, of homeless people as mobile hotspots.  What they did was walk around with 4G Wireless routers that individuals could connect to freely.  These homeless individuals wore a white t-shirt stating their name followed by sentence “I’m a hotspot.”

Snipped from the LFB article, <snip>In economic exchange, we become important as individuals, and others become important to us. This is why market-based societies are also societies in which human beings flourish and feel a sense of being important and valued.</snip>

In this instance, the individuals walking around as hot spots are not worthless mounds of carbon, rather, they become sought-after resources whom provide value to mankind and isn’t that what everyone seeks in life? To be valued by others?

I think that 100% the Free Market wins in this instance.  Those employed win because they are now desired and compensated, not only by BBH Labs but by the individuals acquiring their services in tips that are directly linked to how much the individual using the good that they provide deems it is worth.  This is similar to how the compensation for waitstaff works…

One may say that this is a horrible thing to do; however, is it?  In the European Union, for example, with minimum wage set, depending on the state, at 1398 Euros per month in France,  and 1202 Euros in England, I’m of a strong belief that there is a strong correlation to the unemployment rates that the Euro States experience and the minimum wage.  After all, for a business to hire an individual, they have to produce more for the employer than the employed consumes from the employer, and in many Euro States the unemployment levels are significantly higher than the U.S.

I could blabber on and on about how the simple cost does not reflect all of the social contracts that goes into hiring an employee, as there is more than the salary that an employer has to produce to make hiring them economically viable; however, I will leave it at that.  Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve not been posting much and want to apologize to anyone and everyone whom reads my blabber.  Hopefully, in the near-future, I will be.  On a sidenote, I’ve purchased an ASP.Net hosting package to use as part of my development environment for an application I am in the process of developing for a friend’s school.

It will be written in ASP.Net 4.0 with C#.Net and interacting with a SQL 2008 database.  This project is turning out to be more difficult than I had first thought and am doing a good amount of research in my spare time.

I was involved in a conversation regarding the Republican Nominee for President in the 2012 Elections. The first message I posted with opened with this, a reply to a statement the Gingrich should be it, “I wouldn’t vote for Newt if he was the last person on Earth running against Obama. Newt is just as two faced as the Obummer.

Give me liberty or give me death.”

This was then followed by some blabber on their part where the main point being that Gingrich is so much better than most of the other Republicans and that we need a President, to which my reply was “I agree, in principal. It is better to have anyone in office that is not a Socialist, Communist, Statist, etc. that the Chosen One, our Lord and Savior, OBAMA! (These Obama titles and comments are all sarcastic, if it’s not obvious) However, 99.9% of politicians are just that; shiny fluff covering slop and even if the President is a person that fights for your liberty, we have the House and Senate and the Judicial system working against you.

At least, that’s what my studies of history has shown me.”

Those are some of my thoughts… I have more but I will leave those for later.

A friend of mine, a friend of his and I recently had a short conversation regarding the validity of Keynsian Economics and how it is as much the solution to the world’s fiscal ailments back in the 1930s as it is now. He was of the opinion that if the Republicans just let President Obama do as he pleases, everything would be fine and he agrees with the belief that racism drives the ideology of the Tea Party. There are several other issues that are of concern to him that I won’t raise at this time but I am going to bring my post on Facebook which was in reply to his.

I do agree that racism, pure hatred of a race that one does not belong to, could be behind some; however, I am of a belief that most people want the freedom to do with their lives as they please, which is my reasoning for hating all overlords, no matter their race, gender, sex, or any other classification. The article that he linked to which is in question can be found here.

Following, find a clip from my blabbering from our discussion on John Meynard Keynes and his “solution” to the Great Depression is not the correct solution and how the approach advocated by President Eisenhower would be the correct solution. If there is anything that you disagree with, please comment on why you feel it is incorrect. Thanks in advance.

“Pre-Panic of 1907, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, there were plenty of Market crashes, significant falls in employment, etc.; however, thanks to the fact that there was no one, or a small group of individuals, looking to command the economy, a la Soviet Russia, the recovery was quick. Although there were several other attempts to create a bank that could control U.S. Monetary supply and policy, none had been as powerful as the Federal Reserve and all had been dissolves several years after inception.

So, yes, the majority of people whom side with the Tea Party may may not understand economics, but neither do most of the professors who try to teach economics, it appears.”

I believe a strong fallacy exists in the notion that trade is a zero sum game, which I feel is the notion behind Keysian Economics. I, on the other hand, feel that trade is a trade-off between two, or more, parties where both parties end up befitting. For example, an individual goes into the store to purchase a new pair of shoes. When the purchase is made, the store is in a better condition than it was before the transaction because it was able to trade it’s good, the pair of shoes, for something that it sees to be more valuable than shoes, money to pay the employees of the store, restock inventory, exchange for the utilities, location that allowed it to make the sale, and any that is left over as profit which it can use in whichever way it finds most promising. The customer, on the other hand, was able to trade their money for something that they desired; the pair of shoes.

In this manner, trade is a transaction where parties on both sides of the transaction are better off than they were before the transaction took place. Keynsian Economics, on the other hand, feels that it is just as beneficial to the parties if party a purchases something that is made by party c, where party b is in the position to tell party c what it is that they will produce and in the process party b removes a commission from party c’s income.