The Short-Sighted Cellphone Buyer

This essay marks the beginning of a series regarding an idea of shortsightedness in how we perceive economic and social issues, and how that shortsightedness results in a negative net impact on society, whether it be through action or simply incorrect opinions and mindsets. This first piece relates to a belief set that has become more and more prevalent in recent times: that corporations are greedy and not to be trusted. The problem with such a mindset, as I will explain, is the failure to consider all aspects of a situation, or all potential causes of a particular outcome. When we take the time to consider less obvious factors, things start to make sense in a way we previously could not have imagined. Without further ado, the story of the short-sighted cellphone buyer:

Eliminate Poverty, Support Sweatshops

In reference to the company Nike, a Daily Mail article reads, “They're one of the world's top sports clothing brands, but for years Nike have been dogged by allegations of sweatshops and child labour.” The Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Freidman once said, “The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests.” Nike uses third world labor because it is cheaper than paying citizens of developed countries to produce Nike products. Nike’s motive is one hundred percent self-centered, but this does not mean Nike’s actions are harmful. In fact, Nike’s use of sweatshops and child labor benefits third world workers, reduces poverty, and hastens the development of the countries in which the sweatshops operate. In comparison with Western standards, third-world sweatshops may appear cruel and unfair, but eliminating them removes a viable pathway out of poverty for poor workers, which often results in these workers taking jobs in worse conditions for less pay.

In Defense of the Morally Repugnant

In Western culture, few taboos remain as strong as those related to sex. Many people form a basis for morality on the concept of disgust, but what legal weight should disgust hold? Is a general perception of unpalatability a valid reason for prohibition of something? Incest, polygamy, and obscenity are all examples of legal prohibitions based on the concept of moral disgust; however, validity of a prohibition should be judged not on the social acceptability of the act in question, but on whether the act inflicts harm on a party involved. (To be clear, it is assumed that harm is inflicted if any participant is unable or unwilling to give consent, eg, cases of sexual abuse or pedophilia.) Individual autonomy is highly regarded in United States law, and many criminal laws protect that autonomy. For example, rape is considered a crime because it is a violation of one’s sexual autonomy. In other words, rape takes away the ability of the victim to make a decision regarding with whom they have sex. In the same way, laws that prohibit certain sexual relationships also violate the sexual autonomy of the individual, as they are a way for some people to decide what kinds of sexual relationships other people may have. 

A Higher Minimum Wage? No, thanks.

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama called for raising the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour: "[A] full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we've put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That's wrong." Perhaps, but what Obama and other advocates of the minimum wage fail to acknowledge is the unintended adverse effects such policy has on the very people it purports to help.

Cow Civics

Found this gem on the internet today, as a comment in response to this article about the raw milk debate.  Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you "Cow Civics:"

FEUDALISM:
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. 

FASCISM:
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. 

PURE COMMUNISM:
You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. 

APPLIED COMMUNISM:
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. 

DICTATORSHIP:
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. 

MILITARISM:
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you. 

PURE DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. 

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk. 

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY:
The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair “Cowgate”. The cow sues you for breach of contract. 

EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. 

CAPITALISM:
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. 

TOTALITARIANISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned. 

COUNTERCULTURE:
Wow, dude, there’s like…these two cows, man. You have *got* to have some of this milk.

And here's a surrealistic YouTube video featuring cows, since we're on the subject:

A Case for Legalized Prostitution

This guest piece was originally submitted as an academic paper and some formatting has been edited.

Prostitution is one of the oldest professions in existence.  Sumerian records show that sex was sold as early as 2400 B.C. Societies have attempted to get rid of prostitution almost since it began, usually because it violates a moral or religious belief.  The goals of those in favor banning prostitution are good, but when put into practice, prohibition yields dangerous consequences.  Throughout history, societies' efforts to prohibit prostitution in an attempt to protect morals and decrease the demand for paid sex have always resulted in a disregard for the law, the endangerment of sex workers, and the creation of an underground black market.

Outsource It, Please!

I am taking an economics course this semester, and on the second day of class we talked about some of the basic principles of economics, including trade.  We watched a video of Milton Friedman explaining the ideas behind a famous essay titled, "I, Pencil," written by economist Leonard Read.  The purpose of the video (and originally, the essay) is to explain that free trade benefits us all by allowing us to trade some of our time (in earnings) for a minuscule bit of many other peoples' time (in labor), and that trade all over the world benefits all of us.

A woman in the row in front of me raised her hand and, and starting her sentence with, "Yeah, but," proceeded to explain how a company she had worked for had outsourced a portion of their jobs to India, causing some American workers to be laid off.  "How could this be beneficial to Americans?" she demanded.  "When big greedy corporations outsource, it only benefits their culture, and it hurts ours!"  This is a common objection Americans have when jobs are outsourced to other countries, and the misconceptions behind it also account for the belief that buying products that are "Made in America" benefits Americans more than worldwide trade.